Property-rights dispute

The Washington Times ^ | July 17, 2007 | Sonya D. Jones and John R. Lott Jr.

[hedgetrimmer]

they are not a government agency and are therefore not subject to the laws of the United States and its Constitution

This is exactly why the SPP is so dangerous.

[3AngelaD]

Dennis Schornack was appointed by President Bush to his position in 2001 (he assumed office in 2002), and previously headed the Strategic Inititives office of Michigan Governor John Engler, a conservative Republican. The lawyer hired by Schornack is John MacKay, who was one of the U.S. Federal Prosecutors forced to resign by the White House.

[Shimmer128]

Read this AFTER you take any BP medication, please

[Savage Beast]

"The thought that an international commission could simply order the wall removed at the expense of the owners was beyond anything that the couple had anticipated."

No kidding?

Change the laws so that, if removed, it is at the expense of the burocrats. That'll put a stop to their "idealism" fast!

[Ben Ficklin]

"I don't understand"

Its on the internet

[bikerMD]

If you give Leus an exception, then you have to give everyone else an exception.

I think the point of the article is that neither the IBC nor that idiot Commissioner Arnold Horshack have the power to take private property, hence there is no exception.

[Sunshine Sister]

Exactly. Since when are private property rights an exception to anything?

[Issaquahking]

That’s just scary beyond measure.

[Malsua]

Dennis Schornack, claims that once appointed he has the job for life and cannot be fired

So, what you're saying is that when your life is over, you relinquish the job. Easy enough to fix that.

[caveat emptor]

That treaty the IBC relies upon for its authority does not actually authorize the regulation of that 20-foot-wide zone.

I spent a few minutes searching through their website and their provided links as well as and independent google search of "1960 international boundary commission act" (where I got only a single hit - to their website!) and could find nothing but their "interpretation", ie 20 ft. Have you found any source documents?

[chrisser]

Shornack may be an idiot. However...

"To put it mildly, the Leus were shocked. After all, their retaining wall stands about 8 feet from the actual border and well within their property line"

Obtaining Permission for Construction

To perform any type of work on the 20 feet(6 metre) wide vista along the boundary, a letter of authorization by the commissioners is required. Work is defined in Section 2 of the International Boundary Commission Act, R.S.C. 1985, c1-16, as: "Any ditch, earthwork, building or structure of any description or any lines of telephone, telegraph or power, including posts, piers or abutments for sustaining or protecting the wires or cables of those lines."

Seems the Leus should have looked into what it means to own property along the border. By treaty, it is managed 20 feet on either side by this commission, which was created in 1908.

All that said, Shornack could have handled things a bit more diplomatically and that may be reason enough to fire him, but he appears to be acting within the bounds of the law with respect to the area near the border.

[JRochelle]

Any job where one can’t be fired from, shouldn’t exist.

[chrisser]

From here: http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/i-16/sec5.html (these are Canadian government documents, BTW)

"Construction of works

5. Except with the permission of the Commission, no person shall

(a) construct or place within ten feet of the boundary any work or any addition to a work; or

(b) enlarge any work that was on July 6, 1960 within ten feet of the boundary.

R.S., c. I-19, s. 5. "

[chrisser]

FWIW, I can’t find any U.S. equivalent law online that codifies the powers of this commission.

[badgerlandjim]

Well done!

[hocndoc]

Evidently, it’s 10 feet on either side, and has been for a while.
http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/ibcpg2.htm

[drjimmy]

I've read this article a few times, and I really don't understand the claims of this "commission."

That is because the article is an editorial, and one of its authors is a lawyer for the Pacific Legal Foundation, which has represented the property owner. So the co-author has a vested interest in presenting only one side of the case, which is conveniently not disclosed.

[caveat emptor]

Evidently, it’s 10 feet on either side, and has been for a while. http://www.internationalboundarycommission.org/ibcpg2.htm

Yeah, I found that right off the bat, but that's just their interpretation of the act. I guess I should have been more precise in my question to you. Instead of "source documents" I should have asked about "original documents".

[RC30]

“To put it mildly, the Leus were shocked. After all, their retaining wall stands about 8 feet from the actual border and well within their property line”

From this description it is still unclear to me as to where the retaining wall is. If this were me making this statement as a property owner I think I would be saying that the wall is 8 feet from the edge of the 20 foot border, that is 18 feet from the center of the swath. Not eight feet from the exact middle.

[leadpenny]

Good work.