Private Property Rights Under Attack in the USA

[SASless]

Imagine yourself a helicopter operator, in business since 1970, primarily in the Helicopter Tour business, but a good neighbor who performs SAR missions, supports local law enforcement, and contribute funds for enviormental causes.....to find this in your mailbox one morning.

If you have the time....find a member of the House of Representatives in North Carolina and tell them what you think of this bill.

I find it a very shoddy way of doing business....this will effectively put the western end of North Carolina off limits to commerical helicopter operators. A quick gander at a map will show the vast amount of land that is either the Smokey Mountain National Park or Cherokee Indian Land.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 2005

S 2

SENATE BILL 247

Commerce Committee Substitute Adopted 5/31/05







Short Title: Regulation of Heliports.
(Public)

Sponsors:


Referred to:




March 1, 2005

A BILL TO BE ENTITLED

AN ACT to restrict heliport locations and declare certain heliports a nuisance.

The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:

SECTION 1. G.S. 63‑1(a) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:

"(13a) 'Heliport' means any area of land or water, except a restricted landing area, which is designed for the landing and takeoff of a helicopter, whether or not facilities are provided for the shelter, servicing, or repair of helicopters, or for receiving or discharging passengers or cargo, and all appurtenant areas used or suitable for heliport buildings or other airport facilities, and all appurtenant rights‑of‑way, whether heretofore or hereafter established."

SECTION 2. G.S. 63‑1(a) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:

"(22) 'Tourist resort county' means a county having more than five percent (5%) of its territory located within the boundaries of a national park established pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 403 or a county that has not less than 1,000 acres of tribal land."

SECTION 3. G.S. 63‑1(a) is amended by adding a new subdivision to read:

"(23) 'Tribal Land' means that portion of Indian country, as the term Indian country is used in 18 U.S.C. § 1151, that is within or abutting a national park established pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 403."

SECTION 4. Chapter 63 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new Article to read:

"Article 10.

"Regulation of Heliports.

"§ 63‑100. Regulation of heliports.

Land in a tourist resort county and within 10 miles of the boundary of either a national park, established pursuant to 16 U.S.C. § 403, or Indian tribal land shall not be used as a heliport.

"§ 63‑101. Violations – Heliports deemed a nuisance – Abatement, removal, and conformity.

Notwithstanding the provisions of Chapter 19 of the General Statutes, or any other law to the contrary, a heliport operating as of July 1, 2005, which is in violation of G.S. 63‑100, is declared a public nuisance and shall be abated, removed, or changed to conform to this Article by July 1, 2007. Such heliports may continue to operate until that time provided:

(1) The heliport is not expanded or extended; and

(2) If the use of the land, or any portion thereof, as a heliport is discontinued for a period of six months or changed, any future use of the land is in conformity with this Article.

"§ 63‑102. Violations – Heliports deemed a nuisance – Private right of action.

Any heliport operated in violation of this Article is deemed a public nuisance, causing irreparable injury to the State, the county in which the heliport is located, municipalities located in that county, and the residents of the county. In addition to any other remedies or rights of action possessed by any person or governmental unit, persons who reside on land subject to the prohibitions in this Chapter have a private right of action against a person operating a heliport in violation of this Chapter and have the right to seek injunctive relief as allowed by law to recover damages for nuisance and to recover costs and attorneys' fees if the resident is the prevailing party.

"§ 63‑103. Exceptions.

The provisions of this Article shall not apply to any heliport operated by the State of North Carolina, any of its political subdivisions, any law enforcement, fire or rescue agency, or a healthcare institution licensed by the State to operate an air ambulance."

SECTION 5. This act becomes effective July 1, 2005.

[Heli-Ice]

SAS

All for the sake of nature preservation isn't it?

Did you really think that these people have a slight sense of business? Or maybe some good ethics?

The question is why don't they just take the full step and ban helicopters for good? As you know they are ugly, noisy, pollute a lot, very expensive to operate, irritate jealous neighbours, dangerous to the public, environmental unfriendly and I can go on and on....

Most of the reg makers hate heli's until they need one in case they have an accident. Then they will cry for more funding for the EMS sector, better helicopters for passenger transport, more and better heliports and I can go and on about this also.

Luckily, we don't have many heliports here in Iceland and that fact mostly eliminates our concerns of having to face bills like this in the nearest future. However we might be banned from flying inside our national parks? You know these parks are just for the part of the nation that likes to walk around and inside them.

My view from the middle of the Atlantic.
Heli-Ice

[SASless]

Nope...not preservation....just a handful of folks do not like a tour operation in their town.

Don't you love the definition....5% of land....within a county. They really had to scrape that one up.

North Carolina also limits the number of EMS operators by requiring a minimum seperation of the operations.....eliminates competition but also increases response times when the local aircraft is out on a flight and then neighboring unit has to respond.

Just another case of government and politics getting in the way of good businesss.

The net result of this will be the Cherokee operation will close and all tour flights will be based out of Gatlinburg....which is in the state of Tennessee. Sadly, it will mean a decrease in the business of that tour operator....and the loss of that resource in time of emergencies.

If I got the boot like it looks like will happen...I would let everyone know that any assistance to local interests like SAR, fire fighting, aerial support for law enforcement was over....and refer them to the State Police and Forestry departments which maintain helicopters when they are not crashing them.

[ATPMBA]

Several questions:

1) What kind of helicopters does the operation use?


2) Did you have any knowledge that the lawmakers were cooking up this bill? Did you testify? Where were the helicopter trade groups on this?


3) Whaterver happened to FAR Part 136, they addressed overflights of national parks but I beleivew they left out heliports.


4) Who hates you? Who in town will benefit by the operations demise. Is there a competing land tour operation? Who proposed the reg and where/who did the lawmaker get the idea from?


I thought this topic was about the USSC case were they are seizing homes in New London, CT to build a hotel, etc. But this case is very similiar.

[SASless]

Jetrangers in the main for aircraft.

I first heard of this last night.

The date of the bill shows it originating in May.

I have no connection whatsoever to the company(s) involved.

The 10 mile exclusion area is an interesting issue....zoning is usually done by the county government or city government. Past efforts at this using county ordinances were challenged in court and defeated. Now it appears whoever is behind this is using some friendly State Representative to push the issue.

I see this as being very wrong.....there are already Federal Laws, Regulations, and Rules that pertain to overflight of National Parks.

The recent Supreme Court decision you refer to was a 5/4 vote and in my view wrongheaded. That a private interest can be allowed to take away your private property in the "interests" of a governmental unit flys in the face of our belief in private ownership of property. All a developer has to do is say his project will provide more property tax revenue than your home and he can take it under the guise of "public interest". We might as well be living in feudal times again.

[rotorboy]

This has been going on for years with this compnay. They have been trying to throw them out of Cherokee since they started. Doesnt help that a 400 hr pilot wrecked the L model in Cherokee 2 months ago.

The other operation went through the same thing on the TN side. Kicked out of Gattlinburg, forced out of Pidgeon Forge, currently in Severiville.

[Buitenzorg]

My $0.02 worth…

Get HAI and maybe AOPA involved – that’s if they aren’t already. Even if the operator is not an HAI member, the implications of a bill like this for the industry as a whole are ominous at best, so I doubt HAI would sit back and let this just happen. They have deeper pockets and more savvy in this kind of fight than any operator.

If it comes to litigation / appeal, it would seem hard for the protagonists of this bill to pass it off as anything but a hatchet job: originating in May, to take effect on July 1st? Any court which would review this piece of legislation cannot but come to the conclusion that it must be of malicious intent, and probably unconstitutional.

[SASless]

This does not pertain directly to helicopters....but I think it is worthy of mention....particularly in light of the issues at hand. One will recall the US Supreme Court with a 5/4 split enlarged the right of the government to seize private property on the basis of being able to increase the tax revenue from that parcel of land....no matter it might be your home.

Well....there is justice in this country....read this article!

Press Release
For Release Monday, June 27 to New Hampshire media
For Release Tuesday, June 28 to all other media

Weare, New Hampshire (PRWEB) Could a hotel be built on the land owned by Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter? A new ruling by the Supreme Court which was supported by Justice Souter himself itself might allow it. A private developer is seeking to use this very law to build a hotel on Souter's land.

Justice Souter's vote in the "Kelo vs. City of New London" decision allows city governments to take land from one private owner and give it to another if the government will generate greater tax revenue or other economic benefits when the land is developed by the new owner.

On Monday June 27, Logan Darrow Clements, faxed a request to Chip Meany the code enforcement officer of the Towne of Weare, New Hampshire seeking to start the application process to build a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road. This is the present location of Mr. Souter's home.

Clements, CEO of Freestar Media, LLC, points out that the City of Weare will certainly gain greater tax revenue and economic benefits with a hotel on 34 Cilley Hill Road than allowing Mr. Souter to own the land.

The proposed development, called "The Lost Liberty Hotel" will feature the "Just Desserts Café" and include a museum, open to the public, featuring a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America. Instead of a Gideon's Bible each guest will receive a free copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged."

Clements indicated that the hotel must be built on this particular piece of land because it is a unique site being the home of someone largely responsible for destroying property rights for all Americans.

"This is not a prank" said Clements, "The Towne of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land from Mr. Souter we can begin our hotel development."

Clements' plan is to raise investment capital from wealthy pro-liberty investors and draw up architectural plans. These plans would then be used to raise investment capital for the project. Clements hopes that regular customers of the hotel might include supporters of the Institute For Justice and participants in the Free State Project among others.

# # #

Logan Darrow Clements
Freestar Media, LLC

Phone 310-593-4843
[email protected]
http://www.freestarmedia.com