Friday, December 21, 2007

Family awarded $26.5 million in eminent domain case A Superior Court jury has awarded $26.5 million to a family whose Otay Mesa land was targeted for condemnation by the state Department of Transportation so it could build a freeway. The award was made to Anderprises Inc., a small San Diego family business that has owned land on Otay Mesa since 1974. The land was bought by Phil and Marjorie Anderson; their four sons and their families now own it. After a three-week trial before Superior Court Judge Patricia Cowett, the jury deliberated one day before making the award Wednesday. At issue was the value of a piece of land that the Andersons controlled off Otay Mesa Road east of Interstate 805 and south of Brown Field. Caltrans had used eminent domain to take a 2.8-acre sliver of a 58-acre parcel, said Vincent Bartolotta, Jr. the Andersons' lawyer. But by doing that, the family claimed the majority of the parcel was cut off and landlocked – with no viable access in or out. The agency contended it did not have to pay damages for the balance of the land and offered $172,410 for the 2.8 acres, Bartolotta said. The agency argued that the land was slated to be used for open space anyway and could not be developed. But the Andersons rejected the offer, setting the stage for the trial. The jury ruled unanimously in favor of the landholders. The panel concluded the value of the 2.8-acre parcel was $1.3 million. Additionally, it set damages for the lost use of the landlocked property at $20.1 million....
Leave Those Car Buyers Alone ast week, environmentalists and the auto industry struck a deal to require new cars sold 13 years hence to average 35 miles per gallon; a 40-percent increase over the existing 27.5 mpg mandate. Hands were held, tears were shed, and "Kum-ba-ya" broke out all over Washington. As the president prepares to sign the energy bill passed yesterday by the House, Congress's 32-year-old fight over automotive fuel-economy standards is probably over ... for now. That's too bad, because while there are a number of parties claiming victory from this political peace treaty, consumers will almost certainly be the biggest losers. Of the 1,153 passenger vehicle models on the road today, only two presently meet the proposed 35 mpg standard. According to a quick review of EPA data undertaken by Marlo Lewis at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, those cars are the Toyota Prius and the Honda Civic hybrid. Nine other vehicles, Lewis reports, get 35 mpg in city or highway driving conditions, but not both — and all of those vehicles are either subcompacts or compacts. Hence, the auto fleet is going to have to change — and change a lot — for new cars to average 35 mpg by 2020. The industry has three routes it can go. First, it can lighten cars and thus improve mileage. Second, it can reengineer cars by reducing engine power and incorporating advanced technology to improve fuel efficiency. Third, it can simply stop making low-mileage cars and trucks or, alternatively, increase their prices so much that a substantial number of consumers opt for the fuel-efficient alternatives. Of course, mixing and matching is not only possible, but probable. None of those options, however, represent a Christmas gift to car buyers. Reducing vehicle weight is the cheapest way to improve fuel efficiency, but that would increase highway deaths, just as it has done in the past according to a 2002 study by the National Academy of Sciences. Reengineering cars will reduce automotive performance in ways that car-buyers probably won't like while increasing automotive prices by as much as $3,500 a car according to the same NAS study. Cross-subsidies might be the most direct way to meet the standard, but that represents a rather steep tax on people with large families, big dogs, and those who for whatever reason need to haul around a lot of stuff — not to mention those who simply have a preference for zippy sports cars or riding high off the road. So how does that square with claim that consumers win with more fuel-efficient cars?....
EPA chief is said to have ignored staff The head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ignored his staff's written findings in denying California's request for a waiver to implement its landmark law to slash greenhouse gases from vehicles, sources inside and outside the agency told The Times on Thursday. "California met every criteria . . . on the merits. The same criteria we have used for the last 40 years on all the other waivers," said an EPA staffer. "We told him that. All the briefings we have given him laid out the facts." EPA administrator Stephen L. Johnson announced Wednesday that because President Bush had signed an energy bill raising average fuel economy that there was no need or justification for separate state regulation. He also said that California's request did not meet the legal standard set out in the Clean Air Act. But his staff, which had worked for months on the waiver decision, concluded just the opposite, the sources said Thursday. The sources spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk with the media or because they feared reprisals. California Air Resources Board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said she was also told by EPA staff that they were overruled by Johnson....
FWP Commission OKs tentative hunting plan for wolves Up to 130 wolves could be hunted this fall in Montana under a proposal tentatively adopted Thursday by the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks Commission. The wolf hunting season, slated to run from Sept. 15 to Nov. 30, is contingent upon the wolves being struck from the federal list of endangered species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service expects to do that in February 2008 but anticipates lawsuits to follow, which could delay any hunting season. The FWP Commission decision also could change after it presents the plan at 44 town meetings in January, and through the public comment period. The commission is scheduled to make a final decision on all of Montana’s hunting seasons for the next two years at its February meeting, although wolf season issues may be postponed. This tentative decision mirrors recommendations made earlier this month by Montana’s Wolf Management Advisory Council. The 12-person group of ranchers, hunters, scientists and others decided that 130 wolves could be killed in Montana without reducing the overall number of wolves in the state, and expected that half of those deaths would probably be for preying on livestock. The 130 figure is similar to the anticipated population increase next year because of births and immigration, according to Carolyn Sime, statewide wolf coordinator for FWP....

No comments: