We will take a few days to discuss the policy of being a HOMEOWNER vs being a LAND OWNER. Remember, in MOVING FORWARD it is LAND OWNERS having the power of DUE PROCESS, JUSTICE, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS and if the only land owners are global corporate campuses as is MOVING FORWARD then only those global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS will have those property rights and status as LAND OWNERS.
Here in Baltimore much is made of being a HOMEOWNER vs being a RENTER---TENET. Yet, BALTIMORE CITY has colonial era laws making all property in Baltimore LAND RENT-----houses are built on property where the HOMEOWNER does not own the LAND. HOMEOWNERS in BALTIMORE are not LAND OWNERS-----the title to land goes all the way back to COLONIAL MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE. Not all US states/cities have these ANTEBELLUM PROPERTY LAWS -----LAND RENT-----but it is critical in rebuilding our US CITIES we do so MINUS these LAND RENT policies.
So, as we discuss COMMON OR PUBLIC GROUND-------we shouted all our Baltimore City PUBLIC PARKS AND INSTITUTIONAL property has or is being privatized to global NGOS-----as we discuss the attack on private property ownership by EMINENT DOMAIN now being used by GLOBAL CORPORATIONS in expanding these GLOBAL CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS in all directions with our US 99% WE THE PROPERTY OWNERS having absolutely no ability to stop these LAND GRABS by what is called MOVING FORWARD RE-THINKING LAND USE.
Should You Buy Property on Leased Land?
Amy Fontinelle
February 17, 2017 — 9:44 AM EST
The most traditional form of home ownership is to own both a house and the land upon which it is built. Those who can't afford houses, or who do not want to be bothered with outside maintenance and upkeep, may purchase condos or townhouses. However, there is another homeownership option: buying only the home and leasing the land it occupies.
Purchasing a home in a leased land community enables you to own a home that you otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. However, this type of purchase lacks some of the benefits of traditional home ownership and has other significant drawbacks. Would this unusual ownership setup work for you? Read on to find out.
The Basics
With a trained eye, you can usually spot a leased-land property, even when it is not explicitly stated. Keywords to look for include "manufactured home" and "leasehold interest." Exterior features of the home might be described in terms, such as "association pool" or "association tennis courts." Also, the price of leased property tends to be far below market value. For example, if the going rate for a traditional three-bedroom, two-bathroom, 1,600 square foot is around $500,000, a comparable home on leased land may only cost $150,000. A leased property home may also have unusually upscale features for its price.
Steep homeowners' association (HOA) fees also indicate that a listing may be for a leased-land property. A normal HOA fee might be around $250 per month, while an HOA fee on a leased-land property might be $900 per month. Another giveaway is that if you look at a satellite map of the neighborhood where the home is located, you may notice that the homes are closer together than usual and are extremely similar to one another. Finally, in a typical neighborhood, some homes have their own pools, while in a leased-land community none of them will.
Real estate listings don't always list leased-land property. Sometimes, key information is left out of a real estate listing because of an agent's sloppiness, or because the agent or seller is trying to hide something. Investigate the hidden facts, and never purchase a leased-land property without thoroughly understanding the unusual features of this type of home ownership.
Types of Leased-Land Properties
There are several types of residential leased-land properties, and the most common type varies by region. In Hawaii and Delaware, there are leasehold condos. In areas with Native American reservations, such as Palm Springs, you may be able to purchase property on leased reservation land. In Los Angeles, where even homes in the suburbs far exceed prices the average person can afford, there are leased-land properties in suburban areas, such as Simi Valley and Canyon Country. Florida and Arizona have a number of leased-land retirement communities as well.
Leased-land properties exist in other areas, but because leasing land is an unconventional way to purchase property, this option is not available in every state. Trailer parks, perhaps the most common form of leased-land community, can be found almost anywhere.
When you buy a house or condo on leased land, you'll take out a mortgage on the property as usual. The monthly mortgage payment will be less because the home's purchase price is lower, but you'll also have to pay a significant monthly land lease fee. Because land lease properties are often located in entire communities of similar properties, a leased-land property may also come with HOA fees to cover the upkeep of landscaping, community pools, community buildings, etc.
General Considerations
If you think that buying a property on leased land may be right for you, you should consider the following.
Buying a home on leased land offers the following advantages.
The following are the disadvantages to this form of home ownership.
The Bottom Line
Buying a home on leased land can be tempting when you see the low sale price, but the purchase involves many complexities that traditional home buying does not. Traditional home ownership probably creates the greatest financial security for most people, but buying a home on leased land may be a viable alternative for those whose major priority is buying into a particular community at a lower price than a traditional home or condominium, rather than building equity.
_________________________________________
In the US the DARK AGES OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS policies used to control who could OWN LAND came to colonial US hitting the SOUTH with what were thousand-year old policies of TENET/SHARECROPPER land rents. When global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS pushed continuous wars being CIVIL WAR with goals of breaking down the PLANTATION ---AGRICULTURAL SOUTH to expand the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION the tensions in the south became who could own that land once huge PLANTATIONS?
So, our southern states are largely tied to LAND RENTS------this is why BALTIMORE is still tied to colonial LAND RENT policies.
Meanwhile, our US cities in north used LAND TRUSTS to make sure land ownership stayed with those same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----creating BOARDS AND TRUSTEES ----those 5% freemason/Greek players working to assure OLD WORLD KINGS had control of all that land.
Below we see our great PRETENDERS----global hedge fund OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS HARVARD using all kinds of fancy statistical models to pretend there are considerations about who owns land in US cities-----and who are the HOMEOWNERS on land that is LAND RENT.
'WHAT ARE CITIES WORTH? LAND RENTS, LOCAL PRODUCTIVITY,
AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF AMENITIES
David Albouy*
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
July 2016, 98(3): 477–487
©
2016 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
doi:10.1162/REST_a_00550'
The article above written in 2016 -----looks just like an article written by global banking 1% 300 years ago. So, our US southern states are seeing the earliest MOVING FORWARD of property handed to GLOBAL FACTORIES-------soon to expand and take 99% WE THE SOUTHERN private property owners' LAND RIGHTS----and the same is happening in our northern and western states installing MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES------GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES.
So, our US slaves as freemen never got those 40 acres and a mule because the southern states kept those colonial LAND RENT policies. Today's US city development is tying heavily on LAND TRUSTS all tying property ownership to same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Farmers Without Land: The Plight of White Tenant Farmers and Sharecroppers
By Charles C. Bolton
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Mississippi was an overwhelmingly agricultural state. While farming provided a route to economic success for many white Mississippians, a number of whites could always be found at the bottom of the agricultural ladder, working as tenant farmers or sharecroppers, a status more typically associated with black Mississippians in the century after the American Civil War.
Before examining the history of Mississippi’s white tenant farmers and sharecroppers, some definition of these terms might be helpful. Both tenant farmers and sharecroppers were farmers without farms. A tenant farmer typically paid a landowner for the right to grow crops on a certain piece of property. Tenant farmers, in addition to having some cash to pay rent, also generally owned some livestock and tools needed for successful farming.
Sharecroppers, on the other hand, were even more impoverished than tenant farmers. With few resources and little or no cash, sharecroppers agreed to farm a certain plot of land in exchange for a share of the crops they raised. The exact amount of crops the sharecropper gave over to the landowner depended on the agreement with the landowner.
The tenant/sharecropping system
Although the tenant/sharecropping system is usually thought of as a development that occurred after the Civil War, this type of farming existed in antebellum Mississippi, especially in the areas of the state with few slaves or plantations, such as northeast Mississippi.
Not all whites who emigrated to even the poorest parts of Mississippi in the years before the Civil War had the funds to purchase a farm. As a result, most of the men who headed these households worked as tenant farmers or sharecroppers. Many rented land from or farmed on shares with family members and typically received favorable arrangements, but some antebellum tenants or sharecroppers had to deal with landlords who were primarily concerned with making profits rather than helping struggling farmers move toward landownership.
Consider the sharecropping arrangement that Richard Bridges of Marshall County worked out with his landlord, T. L. Treadwell, in the 1850s. Treadwell provided Bridges with land, livestock, and tools; the landlord also advanced Bridges some food. Bridges grew corn and cotton, and at the end of the year, he had to give Treadwell one-sixth of the corn he grew and five-sixths of the cotton raised. From his share of the crop, Bridges also had to pay Treadwell for the use of the livestock and tools and for the food advanced. Obviously, Bridges worked the entire year primarily for the food he needed to live. He had no opportunity to make any money from this arrangement and accumulate the capital that would allow him to purchase his own farm.
The postbellum farmer
After the Civil War, tenant farming and sharecropping became a way of life for the vast majority of Mississippi farmers. Freed African-American slaves generally had no resources or access to credit to purchase land, and most of Mississippi’s black population that worked in agriculture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries became sharecroppers. With Mississippi’s devastated economy in the years following the Civil War, increasing numbers of white landowning farmers were also reduced to the status of landless farmer.
Many of Mississippi’s small white landowning farmers, also known as yeoman farmers, had not been heavily involved in the cotton economy before the Civil War; however, after the war, a number of factors led the white yeoman farmers to turn increasingly to cotton cultivation. They needed cash to pay off debts acquired during four years of war and the increased taxes levied during Reconstruction and beyond. In addition, new railroad lines built after the war improved access to distant markets and encouraged the development of commercial agriculture among formerly subsistence farmers (subsistence farmers are those who grow crops primarily to feed themselves, their families, and their livestock, rather than to make a profit).
Unfortunately, the price of cotton began a long period of decline in the late 1860s, and many of those white yeomen who had staked their future on cotton production lost their farms. When they did, they frequently became tenant farmers or sharecroppers. By 1900, 36 percent of all white farmers in Mississippi were either tenant farmers or sharecroppers (by comparison, 85 percent of all black farmers in 1900 did not own the land they farmed).
The crop-lien system
For the postbellum tenant farmer or sharecropper, life became an endless cycle of landlessness, debt, and poverty. Sharecroppers faced the most hopeless situation, as most became enmeshed in what was known as the crop-lien system. An 1867 Mississippi law provided that landlords could claim a lien on the crops of their workers for any debts incurred during the growing season.
Almost all farmers who worked as sharecroppers did have to acquire debt. Most sharecroppers began the crop year needing to buy supplies, not only to help raise their crop, but also to keep themselves and their families alive until harvest time. The only thing they had to offer for collateral was the crop they were going to try to raise. So, the sharecropper would turn to a “furnishing merchant,” who might be the landowner or perhaps a neighborhood merchant, who would exchange food and supplies for a lien on next year’s crop. Some landowners who provided a “furnish” (supplies and food) might merely require a greater share of the crop as payment at year’s end. For instance, Elizabeth Brown, whose family oversaw black and white sharecropper families in Perry County in the early 20th century, remembered that the typical share paid by sharecroppers was one-fourth of the crop they raised, but “when we furnished them, we got half of the crop.”
Other furnishing merchants kept accounts during the year of the debts incurred by their sharecroppers, and at the end of the year, at “settlement time,” the merchant would deduct these charges from the sharecropper’s share of the crop. Oftentimes, the debt exceeded the amount the sharecropper made from his share of the crop, and his only alternatives were to sign on for another year with the same landowner/merchant or move on to another farm. In both cases, the cycle of debt and landlessness remained unbroken.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act
While tenant farmers were perhaps somewhat better off than sharecroppers, most tenant farmers were only one bad crop away from slipping into the cycle of debt common among sharecroppers. Both tenant farmers and sharecroppers were significantly poorer than their landed neighbors. Struggling from year to year to acquire the basic necessities of life, tenants and sharecroppers rarely acquired the consumer goods that were increasingly available in the 20th century. A 1942 study by the state of Mississippi found that only 10 percent of white sharecroppers had refrigerators, while only 14 percent owned radios. Landowners in the state were three times as likely to own these same items.
The tenant/sharecropping system in Mississippi, and throughout the South, began to die out during the 1940s and 1950s. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 led many landowners in the state to take part of their lands out of cultivation in exchange for funds offered by the federal government. Thus, landowners eliminated their tenant and sharecropper plots. The AAA program was one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal measures designed to end the Great Depression. This program was designed to reduce farm output in order to raise farm prices. An unintended consequence of the program, however, was the displacement of tenant farmers and sharecroppers.
The AAA did provide Mississippi landowners with much-needed cash, and in the 1940s and 1950s, landowners used these funds to take advantage of technological advances that improved their ability to raise crops like cotton. Landowners bought tractors to break the land, bought newly developed cotton harvesters to pick their crops, and bought pesticides to rid their fields of weeds (previously “chopped out” by tenants and sharecroppers). In the process, Mississippi’s system of farm tenancy and sharecropping quickly came to an end.
Charles C. Bolton, Ph. D., is chair and professor, department of history, University of Southern Mississippi, and co-director of the university’s Center for Oral History and Cultural Heritage. He is the author of Poor Whites of the Antebellum South: Tenants and Laborers in Central North Carolina and Northeast Mississippi, and co-editor of The Confessions of Edward Isham: A Poor White Life of the Old South.
Posted March 2004
________________________________________
We discuss often and in detail how our once sovereign US corporations are no longer US AMERICAN ----they are owned by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. General Electric for example was sold decades ago to overseas global corporations. When we watch these GLOBAL FACTORIES being built earliest in the south----we can be sure the land handed to these GLOBAL FACTORIES are very likely the same land held in TRUST once being huge plantations. After civil war those PLANTATION LAND OWNERS ----GONE WITH THE WIND----no doubt were handed property ownership in northern or western states leaving our US 99% WE THE SOUTHERN CITIZENS to live as the same TENET/SHARECROPPER land renters as before the civil war.
Try as global banking 1% FAKE NEWS MEDIA like CNBC does to show a UNITED STATES FLAG on all these GLOBAL FACTORY land deals-----nothing US is happening in who owns all this PROPERTY in our US cities/counties.
There's no LABORATORY for PROGRESSIVE ideas on land and property ownership happening today------it is the same DARK AGES 1000BC public policies having OLD WORLD KINGS owning all property maybe allowing a global 2% to build a MCMANSION/CASTLE on that property.
Manufacturing Jobs Making a Comeback in Southern U.S.Michelle V. Rafter , NBC News contributor
Published 11:40 AM ET Thu, 20 Dec 2012 Updated 4:14 PM ET Fri, 21 Dec 2012 NBC NEWS
Tetra Images | Getty Images
Apple CEO Tim Cook's announcement earlier this month that the company will start building Macs closer to home in 2013 was seen as a milestone that could help jump-start U.S. manufacturing.
But over the past few years, factories in the American South from the Carolinas to Alabama to Kentucky have already experienced such are birth.
Both U.S. and foreign companies have opened plants in south eastern states in recent years, many since the end of the recession.Others are expanding existing plants or have plans to break ground in 2013.
In South Carolina, Boeing builds 787 Dreamliners just north of Charleston, and Starbucks roasts coffee beans in St. Matthews, outside Columbia.
General Electric is once again making water heaters and refrigerators at its gigantic Appliance Park plant in Louisville, Ky. A Mobile, Ala., shipyard run by Austal USA is growing so quickly that in the past two years the Australian company's workforce has swollen from 800 to 3,300.
Over the past year, North Carolina's Secretary of Commerce Keith Crisco says about 80 percent of the new companies coming to the state involved some form of manufacturing. "That's a big number for us, and the jobs are better than they were," he said.
Companies are taking advantage of state- and local-funded business incentives and convenient transportation routes, as well as the Southeastern U.S.'s lower cost of living and a largely non-union labor force that's inexpensive relative to other parts of the country.
Although hundreds of thousands of factory jobs have disappeared in the South and across the country over the past two decades due to automation and outsourcing to cheaper labor markets in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, the United States remains a manufacturing powerhouse.
The country still produces 18.2 percent of the world's manufactured goods, edging out China's 17.6 percent, according to the latest figures from the National Association of Manufacturers and World Bank.
Today, however, even Chinese companies are building factories in the Southeast, ducking rising labor costs at home, and to be closer to customers and take advantage of the region's pro-business policies.One of the first was appliance maker Haier Group, which opened a $40 million refrigerator factory in Camden, S.C., a dozen years ago.
One of the latest is Lenovo Group, which operates a fulfillment center in Whitsett, N.C. In October, Lenovo announced plans to begin making ThinkPads there in 2013, adding an estimated 115 jobs to an existing workforce of 2,200.
While factory jobs haven't returned to pre-recession levels,they're getting there. In Georgia and Tennessee, manufacturing employment grew 3 percent in the 12 months ending in October, nearly twice the national average of 1.6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Factory employment was above average in Alabama (2.9 percent), South Carolina (2.4 percent) and Mississippi (2 percent) as well.
"It's a business climate like you won't find anywhere else,"says Doug Woodward, an economics professor at the University of South Carolina and incoming president of the North American Regional Science Council, which studies local economies.
Low-cost labor is one of the region's big draws. Economists cite the lack of a large union presence as a benefit since it allows companies to move factory workers from job to job as needs change. In seven Southern states, union members account for less than 5 percent of the workforce. That's less than half of the 11.8 percent national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"It's all about flexibility," said Brian Leathers, Austal's chief financial officer and senior vice president, to NBC News. "Because we treat our people properly --benefits, pay, safe working conditions -- there's not a need for representation."
However, critics point to academic and economic research showing that in right-to-work states, wages and benefits are lower. "They're just not as well compensated," says Matthew W. Finkin, an employment law expert and professor at the University of Illinois' law school .
"So they're creating more jobs and giving more work to people, but they're not giving the benefits and other aspects of employee protections (workers would) have in other states if they were in (a) union."
The local chapter of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association has been unsuccessful in three attempts to organize Austal's Mobile, Ala., shipyard. A representative of Local 441 could not be reached for comment. A representative of the SMWIA's national office declined to comment.
Crisco maintains that manufacturing jobs coming into the South pay more because they require more technical skills.
He argues that right-to-work laws are only one factor drawing companies to the region, along with generous workforce training programs and incentives such as tax breaks that South Carolina gives to companies making substantial capital investments in the area.
"Sure, it's controversial about incentives, but in terms of locating manufacturing jobs here, it's been fairly successful," Woodward says.
Here's a look at activity in a handful of southern states where manufacturing jobs are on the rise:
South Carolina
South Carolina's manufacturing industry lost 100,000 jobs during the 2000s before the 2007-2009 recession wiped out another 40,000,Woodward says.
Recent moves by Boeing, BMW, Michelin, and other tire and auto parts manufacturers and durable goods makers to open or expand factories have reversed that trend. Boeing alone created 8,000 new jobs in the past two years, Woodward says.
"We've gained 10,000 to 15,000 jobs," he says. "Our immediate prospects are very good, but it's going to be a long road if we're going to recover" historic manufacturing employment levels.
In January, BMW said it would add 300 people to an existing workforce of 7,000 at a highly automated auto manufacturing plant in Greer, the company's largest factory outside of Germany. The expansion will to boost annual production to 350,000 by 2014.
"The deep roots of the workforce here in manufacturing are really helpful and we developed a close relationship with the local tech colleges to improve our workforce," BMW Manufacturing President Josef Kerscher said in a late November talk at the University of South Carolina's Darla Moore School of Business. "I'm really satisfied seeing how well prepared our workforce is for advanced manufacturing."
North Carolina
The textile and apparel makers that made up the bulk ofNorth Carolina's traditional manufacturing sector "left and are not coming back,"Crisco says. They're being replaced with companies like Lenovo, which is movingThinkPad manufacturing to the state from Mexico.
Jeld-Wen, an Oregon-based window and door maker, announced on Dec. 13 that it is moving its North American headquarters to Charlotte,adding 142 management and administrative jobs. The company already operates two manufacturing plants in the area with 2,200 employees.
In 2012, manufacturing accounts for 20 percent of North Carolina's gross domestic product, and that doesn't include recently announced deals that will add to manufacturing employment in the near future, Crisco says.
Alabama
In Mobile, Austal is building high-speed, aluminum ships forthe U.S. Navy, made to quickly deliver troops to a war zone or disaster area.
Austal is one of many foreign companies that have opened factories in and around Mobile in the past decade, a group that includes Mercedes Benz, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. In 2013, Airbus will join the list.
The European aircraft manufacturer is expected to break ground on a $600 million complex in 2013 and begin assembling planes there two years later, creating 1,000 jobs, according to the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce.
Though mega deals like the one with Airbus get the most attention,94 percent of factories in the tri-county area around Mobile are domestic, says chamber spokeswoman Susan Rak-Blanchard. Attracting smaller companies that bring 50 to 150 jobs to the area has been "our bread and butter over the years," she says.
Kentucky
The number of people working at GE's famed Appliance Park industrial complex in Louisville peaked at 23,000 in the early 1970s before starting to drop a decade later and hitting bottom in 2011 at less than 2,000,according to a recent report in The Atlantic.
In February, the company returned to the plant, making low-energy water heaters there instead of having them built by a Chinese contractor. A month later, GE moved a refrigerator assembly line from Mexico to the plant, according to the report. (GE is a minority owner in NBCUniversal.)
So far, GE has poured $800 million into revamping manufacturing operations at the facility, including $150 million on a new dishwasher assembly line. According to the company, factory workers helped design the line to be faster and safer, and as a result per-unit production time has dropped 65 percent.
"Companies are looking for a lower cost place to do business and a skilled workforce," said David King, Central South Carolina Alliance marketing vice president. "It doesn't get more basic than that."
_____________________________________________
We saw lots of media and academic writing these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA telling us developers were being allowed to build small communities in and around our NATIONAL PARKS on land once set aside for natural environmental protection. Many are expensive homes build by CA MERELY rich getting away from all that US FAILED STATE CITIES ----building on land owned by US NATIONAL PARK------not owning the LAND/PROPERTY RIGHTS.
These are the same areas being burnt by wildfires as global mining corporations are being handed the LAND-OWNERSHIP of what were US NATIONAL PARKS and all those SET-ASIDES for infrastructure.
So, the MERELY RICH being those upper-tier global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are literally being burnt out of HOUSE AND HOME ----while our southern states ---like MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE are seeing our US 99% WE THE HOMEOWNERS---pushed off by GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS.
We have always known our US national and state parks were LAND TRUSTS. We have always been fighting to keep those LAND TRUSTS---PUBLIC. When global 'environmental' groups like SIERRA CLUB spend these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----they knew our US NATIONAL PARKS would be privatized and devastated as global banking 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS are the great PRIVATIZERS of PUBLIC LAND.
Heather Hansman ----pretending to be an outdoor/environmental media reporter tied to global banking 1% FAKE NEWS media outlets like THE GUARDIAN and NPR -----knows what was MOVING FORWARD these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA for our US national parks
'Our Last Reading List Of The Summer Takes Us Outside : NPR
www.npr.org/2018/09/10/644848324/our-last...
Our Last Reading List Of The Summer Takes Us Outside As we head into fall, Heather Hansman, a correspondent for Outside magazine, shares some of her favorite new books'.
Congress just made it easier to sell off federal land, including national parks
Heather Hansman,
The Guardian
Jan. 20, 2017, 8:00 AM
In the midst of highly publicized steps to dismantle insurance coverage for 32 million people and defund women's healthcare facilities, Republican lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans' birthright: 640m acres of national land.In a single line of changes to the rules for the House of Representatives, Republicans have overwritten the value of federal lands, easing the path to disposing of federal property even if doing so loses money for the government and provides no demonstrable compensation to American citizens.
At stake are areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forests and Federal Wildlife Refuges, which contribute to an estimated $646bn each year in economic stimulus from recreation on public lands and 6.1m jobs. Transferring these lands to the states, critics fear, could decimate those numbers by eliminating mixed-use requirements, limiting public access and turning over large portions for energy or property development.
In addition to economic stimulus from outdoor activities, federal land creates revenue through oil and gas production, logging and other industrial uses. According to the BLM, in 2016, it made $2bn in royalty revenue from federal leases. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates federal tax revenue from the recreation economy at almost $40bn.
Ignoring those figures, the new language for the House budget, authored by Utah Republican representative Rob Bishop, who has a history of fighting to transfer public land to the states, says that federal land is effectively worthless. Transferring public land to "state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays."
Essentially, the revised budget rules deny that federal land has any value at all, allowing the new Congress to sidestep requirements that a bill giving away a piece of federal land does not decrease federal revenue or contribute to the federal debt.
Republican eagerness to cede federal land to local governments for possible sale, mining or development is already moving states to act. Western states, where most federal land is concentrated, are already introducing legislation that pave the way for land transfers.
In Wyoming, for example, the 2017 senate has introduced a joint resolution that would amend the state constitution to dictate how public land given to the state by the federal government after 2019 is managed. It has little public support, but Wyoming Senate President Eli Bebout said that he thought the state should be preemptively thinking about what it would do with federal land.
The Congressional devaluation of national property is the most far-reaching legislative change in a recent push to transfer federal lands to the states. Because of the Republican majority in Congress, bills proposing land transfers could now swiftly diminish Forest Service and BLM lands across the country.
"We didn't see it coming. I think it was sneaky and underhanded. It exemplifies an effort to not play by the rules," said Alan Rowsome, senior director of government relations at The Wilderness Society. "This is the worst Congress for public lands ever."
Rowsome said he's not exactly sure how the rule will be used, but he thinks the first places to come under attack might include areas adjacent to the majestic Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Those areas hold uranium and copper, respectively.Rowsome said he's worried that sensitive tracts of public land, like the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, could soon be up for sale. Some 60% percent of Alaska is made up of national land, and the state's representatives have tried to pass laws claiming parts of it for state use as recently as 2015. "It's amazing ecosystem and worthy of protection, and it's very likely that House Republican majority will open that up for drilling," Rowsome said.
This latest effort comes on the heels of a bill adopted in 2016 that directs the Department of Agriculture to transfer 2m acres of eligible Forest Service lands to each state.
Giving away national land has been part of the Republican Party platform since the mid-80s, after Reagan declared himself a Sagebrush Rebel, but it's regained steam in the past few years as 20 states have introduced some form of legislation suggesting that federal property be given to local governments.
In 2015, Bishop and fellow Utah representative Chris Stewart formed the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team with the specific intent to come up with a framework for transferring public land. "Washington bureaucrats don't listen to people," Bishop said in a statement. "Local governments do."
But Rowsome argues that's a populist message without any popular support, pushed by a small faction of legislators with support from industries like mining and energy. Despite the Republican message that Washington has overstepped in designating national parks and monuments, a 2016 study found that 95% of the American public believes that National Parks are worth protecting and 80% said they'd be willing to pay higher taxes to do so.
"Western Republicans that are perpetuating the idea are very well funded by the oil and gas industry during their campaign," Rowsome said. "It's special interests wielding power for an agenda that will advance their goal. Nearly 90% of BLM lands are already open, but they can't stop trying to get more."
A 2016 Colorado College survey of seven western states found that 60% of voters rejected both the sale of public lands to states and giving states control without sale.
In 2012, Arizona voters struck down two pieces of legislation that would have turned over federal land to the state, including one that claimed the Grand Canyon as state land.
Opponents fear that local governments, especially in states with small budgets, won't be able to invest in management and will sell off land to make money. Last summer, the Forest Service was spending $240m a week to suppress wildfires, and the Department of Interior estimates the cost of deferred maintenance, like updating roads, at around $11bn.
In December, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said that transferring public land to his state was legally and financially impractical. He cited firefighting costs on public land as something that the state budget wouldn't have room for.
Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing.
John Gale, conservation director for the advocacy group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said that he's worried about access for sportsmen. He believes that there's a further danger in segmenting ecosystems through state-by-state development.
"70% of the headwaters of our streams and rivers in the West are on public lands," he said. "Rivers and migratory corridors don't follow state boundaries."
The incoming administration hasn't been clear about where it falls on transfers. Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, tapped to be the next Secretary of Interior, voted for the rules package, but in the past he's been against land transfers. President-elect Donald Trump has spoken out against reallocating federal land, but he's also met with prominent pro-land transfer groups.
Nevertheless, bills proposing land transfer will now have an easy route to passage, as they won't need to be backed by any financial justification.
The entire rules package passed on party lines, but it runs counter to legislation that passed both the House and Senate in November, the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 2016.
Signed into law in December, the legislation requires the Department of Commerce to count the over half a trillion dollars from the outdoor recreation economy in the country's GDP for the first time.
"It's not just natural resources that are on the auction block, but jobs," said Gale. "For a party that prides itself on being fiscally conservative ... they're talking out of both sides of their mouth."
_______________________________________________
Just as with homeowners buying homes a developer was allowed to build in FLOODPLAINS-----most homeowners building in FORESTED CALIFORNIA which has declared these mountain ranges owned/controlled by global mining corporations are of course being told they cannot REBUILD A HOUSE EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE BURNED DOWN----just as our HOMEOWNERS on floodplains are now being told their HOMEOWNERS' insurance will not cover rebuilding the EXACT HOUSE because land once declared NOT ON FLOODPLAIN is now deemed FLOODPLAIN. So, these are all tactics built by global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH.OBAMA to assure our US 99% WE THE PROPERTY OWNERS are no longer able to be LAND OWNERS.
Whether global banking 1% are using GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS----our using FRAUDULENT WATER OR PROPERTY TAXES----or using PROPERTY INSURANCE-----all of the above is tied to MOVING FORWARD LAND OWNERSHIP making sure US land is only owned by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
BUY THIS EXTENDED WARRANTY HOMEOWNER INSURANCE -----THAT WILL COVER PROPERTY DAMAGE 'NEXT TIME' SAYS GLOBAL BANKING 1% PREDATORY INSURANCE CORPORATIONS-----OH, REALLY???
Do Insurance Companies Cover Homes Destroyed by a Forest Fire?
March 13, 2011
By: Tom Johnson
Forest fires can occur at any time and have the potential to devastate a community or an entire region. For instance, wildfires destroyed 2,180 homes in Southern California in October 2007. Your homeowner's insurance policy covers the destruction of your home from a wildfire. However, the amount of coverage you have depends on the type of policy you purchase and any extra coverage you select.
Forest fires can occur at any time and have the potential to devastate a community or an entire region. For instance, wildfires destroyed 2,180 homes in Southern California in October 2007. Your homeowner's insurance policy covers the destruction of your home from a wildfire. However, the amount of coverage you have depends on the type of policy you purchase and any extra coverage you select.
Homeowner's insurance covers homes destroyed by forest fires.Dwelling CoverageThe dwelling coverage of a homeowner's insurance policy provides compensation to help homeowners rebuild or replace a destroyed home. However, the dwelling coverage of many homeowner insurance policies is limited. If the cost to rebuild your home exceeds the dwelling limit, you may have to either build a smaller home or pay the additional costs yourself. Furthermore, the dwelling coverage only covers what it would cost you to build a home with the exact specifications and features of the destroyed home.
Building Code Upgrade CoverageDue to changes in local building ordinances, your community's building department may not allow you to build your home exactly as it was before the fire. For instance, some wildfire-prone communities require that all newly built home have roofs made of fire-retardant materials. Others require the installation of interior fire sprinklers. The dwelling coverage of your policy only covers up to the cost of rebuilding your home exactly as it was before the fire. To protect yourself against the cost of code upgrades, purchase a policy that contains this provision.
Forest fires can occur at any time and have the potential to devastate a community or an entire region. For instance, wildfires destroyed 2,180 homes in Southern California in October 2007. Your homeowner's insurance policy covers the destruction of your home from a wildfire. However, the amount of coverage you have depends on the type of policy you purchase and any extra coverage you select.
Homeowner's insurance covers homes destroyed by forest fires.Dwelling CoverageThe dwelling coverage of a homeowner's insurance policy provides compensation to help homeowners rebuild or replace a destroyed home. However, the dwelling coverage of many homeowner insurance policies is limited. If the cost to rebuild your home exceeds the dwelling limit, you may have to either build a smaller home or pay the additional costs yourself. Furthermore, the dwelling coverage only covers what it would cost you to build a home with the exact specifications and features of the destroyed home.
Building Code Upgrade CoverageDue to changes in local building ordinances, your community's building department may not allow you to build your home exactly as it was before the fire. For instance, some wildfire-prone communities require that all newly built home have roofs made of fire-retardant materials. Others require the installation of interior fire sprinklers. The dwelling coverage of your policy only covers up to the cost of rebuilding your home exactly as it was before the fire. To protect yourself against the cost of code upgrades, purchase a policy that contains this provision.
If the dwelling coverage limit of your policy is not enough to rebuild your home, you may be able to receive additional money if your policy has extended replacement cost coverage. The limit of this coverage is usually 25 percent of the dwelling coverage limit. For instance, if you have a dwelling policy limit of $200,000, the extended replacement cost coverage limit would be $50,000. If the cost to rebuild your home turns out to be $225,000, you would receive the $200,000 dwelling limit and $25,000 in extended replacement cost benefits. If it costs $300,000 to rebuild your home, you would receive only $250,000.
Other StructuresThe other structures coverage of your homeowner's policy provides protection for detached garages, guest houses and other structures not permanently attached to your home. This is a standard coverage for most homeowner insurance policies and the coverage limit is typically set at 10 percent of the dwelling coverage limit.
________________________________________
GROUND RENT is the same as LAND RENT and below we see a global banking 5% freemason/Greek player as PEOPLE'S LAWYER pretending to be fighting against these colonial LAND RENT policies here in Baltimore and Maryland. This lawyer says nothing about MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE designation killing any ability of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE being able to be LAND OWNERS------he does not say that the MARYLAND CONSTITUTION is just as invalidated as our US CONSTITUTION when our Maryland ATTORNEY GENERAL FROSH pushes SANCTUARY CITY/STATE policies making all of MARYLAND private property to be owned by ONLY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS owned by OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'Ground Rent Legislation Controversy
On behalf of a coalition of displeased ground rent owners, attorney and ground rent trustee Charles Muskin filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s new laws prohibiting new ground rents and forcing ground leaseholders to comply with the State’s registry requirements'.
So, yes------we do need to end GROUND RENT in Baltimore City and Maryland----and NO these policies being pushed by a FAKE PEOPLE'S LAWYER telling us AMENDING MARYLAND CONSTITUTION will help our US 99% of WE THE BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND CITIZENS be LAND OWNERS-----this is all FALSE FLAG media-------meant to make our 99% whether US or new to US immigrants think something is being done to allow for LAND OWNERSHIP.
Buying your ground rent
Buying the ground rent that affects your property is one of the best investments that you will make. It takes your leasehold interest and converts it into a freehold one. You will own the "fee simple in possession", the best form of title available in English law. You will have the satisfaction that your home is fully your own. There will be no more rent to pay. While it is impossible to quantify the actual value this will add to your home, there is no question that it will make it a more attractive proposition for any purchaser.
The Morgoed Estates offer
We offer for sale all our ground rents at a fixed cost price plus Land Registry fees (usually around £40). For this price we will take care of all legal work to enable you to register your purchase.
We are also able to offer an easy payment plan that allows the purchase price to be spread for up to a year without charge. Please contact us for details.
How the process works
Once you have agreed and paid the purchase price, we will send back a confirmation letter and a preliminary form to complete. Full details of how to complete the form are provided. In particular, please note that we will require the full names of all owners of the property. This will then be processed and the relevant documents to transfer ownership to you will be drawn up and sent to you for signing.
You should check the forms for accuracy, sign in the two places indicated, attach a cheque for the required registration fee and then post off the completed package to the Land Registry in the stamped addressed envelope provided.
On completion of this process your new freehold interest will be registered at the Land Registry who will confirm this by sending you an official copy of the register.
This BUYING YOUR GROUND RENT policy is yet another global banking 1% PROPERTY SCHEME only in place to get more and more money from our 99% WE THE HOMEOWNERS thinking they are WINNERS by being allowed to BUY GROUND RENTS. At any time in MOVING FORWARD global banking 1% wants your GROUND---that GROUND RENT you bought will disappear after all those years of PAYING FOR THOSE GROUND RENT RIGHTS.
IT'S A TRAP-------as THE KRACKEN finds yet another way to bleed Baltimore and Maryland home-owners of more and more future financial gains on these homes.
MARYLAND PEOPLE'S LAW LIBRARY
Understanding Ground Rent in Maryland
Current Ground Rent Laws
What is Ground Rent?
Nearly unique to the Greater-Baltimore area, ground rent is a periodic monetary payment by a tenant to a ground leaseholder who holds a reversionary interest in the property or “ground” underneath a home. Specific terms and conditions are contingent on the actual language of the ground lease, but such leases often require payment from the lessee (homeowner) of between $50-150 per year, commonly paid in semi-annual installments.
In practical effect, a homeowner who is subject to a ground rent must make payment to a ground leaseholder for the right to dwell on the property. Full and timely payment to the leaseholder ensures this right perpetually, or until the lease expires and is not renewed.
Ground rent arrangements differ legally from a normal landlord-tenant relationship because the ground leaseholder has no reversionary interest in anything resting on the property or in the dwelling space built upon the property unless the leasehold tenant is delinquent in payment.
The absolute management and control of the property remains with the leasehold tenant so long as the ground rent is paid (Beehler v. Ijams, 72 Md. 193 (1890)). Consequently, the leasehold tenant has the authority to alter, remodel and reconstruct the property as s/he wills, but the tenant must ensure that their actions leave the reversioner’s rent secure (Crowe v. Wilson, 65 Md. 479, 484 (1886)).
The homeowner is responsible for maintenance of the land and any improvements on the land, including improvements made to the home itself (Kolker v. Biggs, 203 Md. 137, 141 (1953)). It is the sole responsibility of the homeowner to procure and make payment on any utilities that service the property.
When a home is purchased, the homeowner may determine if he or she is subject to payment of a ground rent by looking at the deed or by checking the property listing on the Multiple Listing Service Nationwide Database . If you are a ground rent tenant or leaseholder and you have a question, it is a good idea to contact an attorney.
Ground Rent Rights and Responsibilities
Title 8 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code dictates the laws regarding ground rents. Subtitle 7 governs registry of ground leases, and subtitle 8 governs residential ground leases.
The Department of Assessments and Taxation maintains an Online Registry of Properties that are subject to ground leases.. Ground leaseholders have to officially register their ground leases with the Department or face forfeiture of future collections on the leases. This system ensures that leaseholders and lessees have each other’s contact information so that collection problems need not arise through failure to receive payment notices.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-704
Registered ground leaseholders are entitled to a lien against the property for the amount owed, and the leaseholder may foreclose upon the lien if the rent goes unpaid after a reasonable time. These foreclosure rights are like that of a bank when it forecloses on a mortgage. The law is meant to ensure that when the lien is foreclosed upon, the homeowner retains the equity in his or her home despite the forfeiture of the property.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-402.3
If a ground lease is not registered, the ground lease holder may not:
1. Collect any ground rent payments due under the ground lease;
2. Bring a civil action against the leasehold tenant to enforce any rights the ground lease holder may have under the ground lease; or
3. Bring an action against the leasehold tenant under the ground rent laws.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-707
Redeeming (Purchasing) Your Ground Rent
Some residential ground rent tenants retain the right to “redeem” (purchase) the ground rent. The State of Maryland currently regulates the purchase prices for ground rents using a special algorithm. It accounts for both the leasehold value of the property as well as the lessee’s yearly earnings so as to prevent the leaseholder from creating excessive monetary barriers to redeeming one’s ground lease.
Ground rent lessees may obtain information regarding the purchase of their ground lease through the Department of Assessments and Taxation’s Ground Rent Redemption Program . If the leaseholder’s address is unknown, the tenant must post in a conspicuous place legal notice (sample notice available here ) of his or her intention to purchase. The lessee has 30 days to comply or else forfeit future collections pursuant to the lease.
Should you wish to purchase your ground rent but are unable to afford it, the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development offers a Ground Rent Redemption Loan Program through which income-eligible homeowners may redeem their ground rent.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-804
Background
The Historical Origins of Ground Rent
The concept of ground rent in Baltimore and surrounding counties may be traced back to colonial times, when colonists who wished to settle in the area paid taxes to Lord Baltimore for the right to do so.
As the old English lordship system was phased out, enterprising investors bought tracts of land from the newly sovereign colonial governments and allowed tenants who otherwise could not purchase land for themselves to make small, incremental rent payments as a less-expensive alternative to land ownership.
The practice was especially popular in the years following the American Revolution as many who were previously landowners were forced to begin again from scratch. What little wealth had been built in America’s infancy was in many cases erased by the War. Ground leases offered a post-war solution that required little initial investment, but afforded people with all the substantive perks of ownership, including a degree of sovereignty over their home.
The specific terms of these early leases were as arbitrary as they were various, but the popular practice was to set the leases to a term of 99 years with provisions for indefinite renewals thereafter so as to avoid the rule against perpetuities.
As the 99-year leases expired in the late 1800’s, only a very small percentage of them were actually renewed. The practice of drafting ground leases soon gave way to a higher rate of land ownership and more traditional landlord-tenant leases in which the landlord also owned the dwelling space.
Ground rents then resurfaced in Baltimore following the Second World War as investors bought up much of the land left vacant by those fighting overseas and drafted ground leases for the properties. When the GI’s returned to settle down and raise families, there was an enormous demand for low-cost home ownership in the City and surrounding counties. Many who were unable initially to afford both the land and the home built upon it jumped at the opportunity for small annual payments on the land in exchange for a larger initial investment in the home. Many of these leases, too, were drafted to expire after a period of 99 years, hence the lingering prevalence in the area.
Modern Ground Rent Developments
In the present day, ground rent is commonly viewed as a dying, yet no less legally binding, vestige of Maryland’s colonial past. Almost all of the remaining national instances of ground rent are confined to the Greater Baltimore area, isolated areas of Pennsylvania, and most of Hawaii.
Despite the irregular nature of ground rent law, many of the same provisions apply as to normal landlord-tenant relationships. If one pays his or her ground rent, the ground leaseholder receives payment on land that they own, and in return the lessee (homeowner) continues to justify his or her dwelling on the property.
The legal treatment of ground leases has created a problem, however. Grounds rents may be bought, sold, and passed to next of kin through wills, like a home or a family heirloom. The leasehold interest in the property is considered personalty, and is governed by the law that directs the administration of personal estate (Myers v. Silljacks, 58 Md. 319, 330 (1882)). Each time the ground leasehold interest is passed to someone else, the administrative tasks increase in the form of paperwork, and sometimes through consultations with lawyers or through court appearances. For this reason, ground rent leases sometimes become more burdensome than beneficial for the new leaseholders.
When the leasehold interests change hands, the new leaseholders occasionally may not seek out the lessees for payment, and when no demands for payment arrive in the mail the homeowners are happy to oblige. However, Maryland law prior to 2007 put the legal burden on the lessees to find their ground leaseholders and make payments.
In recent years, according to articles in The Baltimore Sun during 2006 and 2007, several real estate firms and private entities have purchased thousands of inactive ground rents and tracked down the lessees for payment. As a result, some homeowners have been surprised to learn that their long-inactive ground leases are once again active and that in some cases they are considered delinquent in payment even though they had not been notified by their ground leaseholder of the renewal of their debt.
Before Summer 2007, leasehold entities were entitled to sue the homeowners for all back ground rent, charge interest on the debt, and bill the lessees for the legal and procedural costs associated with finding what are often new names, new addresses, and other pertinent billing information. Sometimes, the homeowner is unable to pay such debts in the short time required, in which case the leaseholder in entitled to pursue a judicially-ordered ejectment from the home.
According to Maryland law at the time, a successful ejectment also meant that the leaseholder seized ownership of the home and all associated equity. Potentially, a lessee who defaulted in ground rent payment risked losing the home to the leaseholder, who could then sell the home at market value for a price significantly higher than the original ground rent fees.
Thousands of cases have flooded the Maryland civil court system during these past few decades, especially following a poignant and thorough investigative series in the Baltimore Sun in December of 2006 titled “On Shaky Ground.” The often-ignored ground rent system gained notoriety for the long-standing provisions in Maryland law that allowed enterprising investors to evict Baltimore homeowners, then seize and sell their homes over simple nonpayment of ground rent. Sun investigations had turned up a particular case in which a family was forced to settle with the ground leaseholder to the tune of $18,000 or risk losing their home. Their back rent debt had amounted to all of $24 (Ground Rent case settled – for $18,000 The Sun 12/21/06).
The public response that followed The Sun’s ground rent series forced the Maryland General Assembly to make ground rent a legislative priority.
Ground Rent Legislation Controversy
On behalf of a coalition of displeased ground rent owners, attorney and ground rent trustee Charles Muskin filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s new laws prohibiting new ground rents and forcing ground leaseholders to comply with the State’s registry requirements.
Muskin contended that the new legislation infringed on his rights as a property owner to seek appropriate remedy for delinquent renters. He also claimed that the State’s mandates that he register his ground lease and pay the required administrative fees to the Department of Assessments and Taxation violated his rights under Maryland’s constitution.
On October 25, 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its decision . In the case, Charles Muskin v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation (No. 140 of September Term), the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mr. Muskin, ruling that allowing tenants to extinguish unregistered ground rents is an unconstitional taking.
In addition to the Muskin case, another group of ground rent holders filed a lawsuit against the state in November 2007 over a different provision of the 2007 law, which prohibited ejectments for residential ground leases on properties of four units or less, and established a lien-and-foreclosure process when tenants owe at least six months’ rent. On February 26, 2014, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its decision . In the case of State of Maryland v. Stanley Goldberg (No. 8, September Term, 2013), the Court ruled in favor of the ground rent holders, holding that “the ground leaseholder’s right of reentry must be viewed as an inextricable part of the bundle of vested rights which the Legislature may not abolish retrospectively.” In effect ground rent holders cannot be forced to file foreclosure actions in order to enforce their rights against the people living on the property.
_____________________________________________
Here we see this same GROUND/LAND RENT scheme in UK--------the REAL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE as property/land owners is-----ending designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ----stop MOVING FORWARD global corporate campuses being allowed to use EMINENT DOMAIN to seize individual property owners' land.
Our rights to property as we discussed a few weeks ago lie in COMMON LAW/US CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS----when a state does not enforce FEDERAL LAWS----those state constitutions having these few decades some power outside of US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---now have NO POWER when a state is designated SANCTUARY STATE meaning the entire state is now deemed a US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE.
NO US CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS----NO STATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN DESIGNATION OF US FOREIGN ECONOMIC/SANCTUARY ZONE EXISTS.
No one or no NGO is fighting against GROUND/LAND RENTS is they are not shouting and educating against US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES/SANCTUARY CITY/STATES.
A governor pretending to be tough on immigration policy are MOVING FORWARD these same policies using different terms.
Beware the Rentcharge "Scam" - and it's perfectly legal
The arcane world of Rentcharges has moved on significantly – and not in a good way.
We have updated this post a few times since my appearance on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” a couple of years ago to discuss Rentcharges.
At the beginning of last year, we were able to confirm what we thought was the end to a particularly vindictive abuse of process in how arrears were recovered.
Annoyingly, on appeal, the law has been returned to its previous anachronistic form.
If you are the owner of a property with a Rentcharge (or Chief Rent depending on which area you live) you need to read on to avoid your being an unwitting part of a particularly nasty Conveyancing Nightmare.
More on that later, but first some background.
What is a Rentcharge?
Rentcharges (technically Rentscharge but let’s not be too pedantic, we’re friends after all) originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land.
Landowners would sell land to Developers at a reduced capital sum or for no money at all in return for an income from the owners of the new houses and their subsequent owners.
The person entitled to the Rentcharge is known as the Rentowner.
Rentcharges normally range between £2 and £10 per annum with the most expensive at around £12.60.
Rentcharges originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land
Rentcharges in Bristol, Chief Rents in Manchester
A Rentcharge is a peculiarity of Conveyancing in Bristol and surrounding towns and villages. They can also crop up in other areas of England such as Bath and Sunderland.
In Manchester such payments are known as Chief Rents.
Estate Agents, in our neck of the woods, often use the term “freehold and free” in their property particulars and brochures. In this context “freehold and free” refers to a freehold house which is not subject to the payment of a Rentcharge.
Rentcharge Sell By Date 2037
The 1977 Rentcharges Act abolished the creation of all new Rentcharges, subject to a few exceptions, for example, small developments with shared facilities such as a pumping station or shared accessways.
The shelf-life for existing Rentcharges was capped at 60 years so that all relevant Rentcharges would expire in 2037.
The 1977 Act, for those who could not wait that long, by design or choice, permitted existing freehold owners, to buy out (or redeem as it is technically known) the Rentcharges attached to their property.
A Rentcharge should not be confused with a Ground Rent which only relates to Leasehold properties, especially, although not exclusively, to flats. You do not have an automatic right to buy your Ground Rent.
How Much Does It Cost To Redeem a Rentcharge?
If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.
The cost of redeeming the Rentcharge will be about 16 times the yearly payment.
We had an enquiry from a client who had received a letter from an Estate Agent acting for a Rentowner and was asked would he like to purchase the Rentcharge for £750
We were asked whether £750 was a good deal or not.
The Rentcharge in question amounted to £2.64 per annum.
The cost to redeem under the 1977 Rentcharge Act would be about 16 times the yearly payment, approximately, £43.
We said it was not a good deal and advised him to contact the Department for Communities and Local Government
If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.
The address to write to or download the application form online is:
Rentcharges Unit:
Department for Communities and Local Government, Ground Floor, Rosebrae Court, Woodside Ferry Approach, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 6DU.
Are There Any Problems with Rentcharges When Selling Your Property
Inflation has eroded any financial advantage for Rentowners.
Many homeowners have been paying the yearly rentcharge although many may have forgotten to pay, not been asked to pay or not known who to pay.
As Conveyancing Solicitors, we often have to deal with problems where there is no evidence of payment of the Rentcharge on the sale of a property.
Conveyancing Solicitors in Bristol normally agree on an apportionment from the sale price of 6 years (the limitation period for a debt) Rentcharge payments roughly between £15 and £75.
No big deal then?
The Rentcharge “Scam”?
Many conveyancing deeds which include a rentcharge state that such rent will be payable annually “whether formally demanded or not”.
Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners.
Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners
Here is what happened to one of our conveyancing clients in Bristol.
The Facts:
Our client owned a house in Bristol subject to a Rentcharge. He received a Rentcharge demand purporting to be from the new Rentowner.
Our client had been paying his Rentcharge annually ever since he bought the property to another person. Naturally, he asked for proof of ownership before paying to someone else. Proof, he was told, would only be provided if a £60 administration fee was paid. Not, unsurprisingly, he refused.
But, here’s the rub: the company went ahead with imposing a Statutory Lease on the property rather than pursuing its debt through the Courts.
The company used the little-known Section 121 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( the LPA) to create a Lease as security for payment of its Rentcharge.
The sum total of the Rentcharge debt that the company, Morgoed Estates Limited (Morgoed), could have legitimately claimed through the Courts was only £16.50
Morgoed used the LPA to create a Lease on his property as security for debt of the £16.50 unpaid Rentcharge.
When our client discovered a Lease had been created on his property, he offered the £16.50 offered in full payment of the outstanding debt.
The company refused this offer.
A Sledgehammer Lease to Crack a Rentcharge Nut
What Morgoed did was perfectly legal, but hardly proportionate.
In 1925 the annual sums payable as Rentcharges were not insignificant.
The ability to create a Lease therefore as security for payment would not have been that controversial.
Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners.
But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.
Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners. But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.
The 1925 Act also permits the Rentowner to claim its fees for creating the Lease and a payment for the removal of the Lease as well.
Unfortunately, there is no requirement in the Act for the fees charged to be reasonable.
The fees could easily run into thousands of pounds if the Rentowner so chooses.
Our client took Morgoed to Court to remove the Lease from the title to his property.
And, he at least, had his day in Court.
A Short-Lived Victory
The Court was having none of it and decided in favour of our client.
The Court decided that
“The lease …is not registrable at HM Land Registry as a lease because it is a mortgage (within sections 3(5) and 4 (5) of the Land Registration Act 2002) and can only be protected on the register by a notice.”
The company could not ask for any additional monies over and above the outstanding Rentcharge debt.
The judge did not temper his opinion when he stated:
By the Applicants (Morgoed) unreasonable conduct in these proceedings and in persisting in charging unreasonable sums as a condition for redeeming the Rentcharge I see no reason why the standard order for costs (against Morgoed) should not follow the failure of the application.”
Morgoed’s ruse of creating a Lease had been rumbled.
The Land Registry removed the restriction on our clients title and he was able to sell his property without the Statutory Lease.
But, unfortunately, for other homeowners that changed once again on an Appeal in July 2016.
The Appeal Decision
Viewers look away now, as they say on TV, as you may find scenes of an unpleasant nature.
The Court reversed the earlier decision and held that:
“It is clear from s 121 of the LPA that the right to grant a lease arises once there is 40 days of arrears, provided that the rentcharge remains in existence and even if payment was not demanded.
That right is unaffected even if the Appellants have provided no information about their entitlement to the rentcharge, even if they have sent demands to the wrong address, and even if they have refused arrears after the grant of the lease.”
It is difficult to see how the appeal could have gone any better for Morgoed. You can read the full decision here.
The judge although recognizing how the result was not appropriate said that Parliament should have reformed the remedies available in the 1977 Act and abolished the right to the Statutory Lease.
To be fair to the lawmakers, such abuses were not prevalent, if at all, at the time.
8 Tips To Avoid the Rentcharge “Scam” Happening To You
The Rentcharge “scam” is very real one and legal!
There are a few things you can do to minimize your risk of being caught in the “scam”
1. First, check your deeds to see if your property could be subject to a Rentcharge. If you are unsure check with your Conveyancing Solicitor or the Land Registry.
2. Make sure you pay your Rentcharge on time whether demanded or not and ask for a receipt.
3. Set up a Standing Order if possible to avoid overlooking payment of the Rentcharge.
4. If you were paying a Rentcharge but it has not been demanded check with your neighbours to see if they have any information.
5. If you receive a new demand for a Rentcharge ask for documentary proof from the purported new Rentowner and ensure your request by mail is “Signed for”
6. Be prepared to pay an Administration fee for proof (however unpalatable) to avoid paying hundreds of pounds later if a Statutory Lease is registered against your property.
7. If your Rentowner is Morgoed or other “investment companies” make sure you never miss a payment not even when you were not prompted to pay. Companies like Morgoed exist to make money out of unsuspecting homeowners with Rentcharge liabilities from dubious administration fees and/or payment defaults.
8. Best of all, redeem your Rentcharge through the Department for Communities and Local Government as it will save potential hassle and additional cost later on when you sell your house.
Don’t fall into the Rentcharge Trap and turn the non-payment of a few pounds into a Conveyancing Nightmare.
__________________________________________
We want our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens as well as our new to US immigrants to understand how global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA use terms differently all having the same goals.
MARYLAND has political machines PRETENDING to be 'left' social progressive DEMOCRATS----while our neighbor VIRGINIA PRETENDS to be more conservative with lots of connections to US MILITARY-----so, OPPORTUNITY ZONES-----as below are the same as US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and any US 99% WE THE LANDOWNERS will soon be pushed off as these global corporate campus footprints are installed.
'Governor Northam announces nomination of Opportunity Zones in ...
chesterfieldbusinessnews.com/…/governor-northam-announces-…/
Apr 24, 2018 ... Four of the nominated Opportunity Zones are located in Chesterfield ... to spur vitality in economic growth in communities across Virginia and ...'
So, does VIRGINIA have Sanctuary CITIES ----well yes, they are called SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES-----being US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---as this article states having included Alexandria and Richmond------
NONE of the policy goals tied to SANCTUARY CITY/STATES have goals of protecting our 99% new to US immigrants---it simply allows global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS to build POPULATION DENSITY of global labor pool for MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL FACTORIES.
THESE VIRGINIA POLICIES MEAN OUR VIRGINIA 99% OF WE THE LANDOWNERS WILL SOON BE PUSHED OFF.
A governor pretending to be tough on immigration policy are MOVING FORWARD these same policies using different terms.
We already KNOW this 'buying' of land for this new industrial site will be presented as EMINENT DOMAIN by individual small business and home owners trying to keep title to that LAND.
Does Virginia Have Sanctuary Cities?
Home > Issues > Welcoming All > Does Virginia Have Sanctuary Cities?
What is a Sanctuary City?
There is no agreed upon definition, though in general terms ‘Sanctuary Cities’ do not share residents’ information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As this is a self-designated term, “Sanctuary” has been used to describe localities that issue statements of welcome and localities that do not comply with ICE requests.
Does Virginia have Sanctuary Cities?
No. Virginia has cities such as Richmond and Alexandria that have declared themselves to be “inclusive.” However, there are no localities in Virginia that are “sanctuaries.” Virginia cannot have Sanctuary Cities because the Commonwealth is bound by the Dillon Rule, which means that no locality can have a law that violates state law. In Virginia, everyone who is processed through the criminal justice system has their fingerprints sent to the Department of Homeland Security. Because of this automatic information sharing, no locality can be a “Sanctuary.”
Do Sanctuary Cities protect gang members from prosecution?
No. Sanctuary Cities do not shield people committing crimes. People who commit crimes still face the same charges, same sentences and punishments. In fact, crimes are more likely to be reported and witnesses are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement in Sanctuary localities.
What is the purpose of a Sanctuary city?
Declining to share residents’ information with ICE allows undocumented individuals and their families to interact with law enforcement without fear of deportation. Victims are more likely to report crimes. Drivers in fender benders are more likely to remain at the scene. People in need are more likely to seek the resources available for their families. Witnesses are more likely to come forward.
In fact, Sanctuary Cities have seen a reduction in crime and an increase in reporting of crimes. They keep our neighborhoods safer for all residents. But remember — Virginia cannot have Sanctuary Cities. For now, the whole conversation is a red herring.
_____________________________________________
WE CAN'T FIND COMMON GROUND SO WE AGREE TO BURN IT DOWN!
Here is our global banking 1% freemason STARS creating FADS tied to what COMMON GROUND means in US. COMMON GROUND is found in COMMON LAW tied to our US CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS.
Global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are all pretending they can simply amend state constitutions to protect US 99% WE THE LANDOWNERS and our new to US immigrant citizens buying HOMES inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
youtube.com
Our Last Night - "Common Ground" (OFFICIAL)
Purchase "Common Ground" Here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/you... Stream on…
Here in Baltimore much is made of being a HOMEOWNER vs being a RENTER---TENET. Yet, BALTIMORE CITY has colonial era laws making all property in Baltimore LAND RENT-----houses are built on property where the HOMEOWNER does not own the LAND. HOMEOWNERS in BALTIMORE are not LAND OWNERS-----the title to land goes all the way back to COLONIAL MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE. Not all US states/cities have these ANTEBELLUM PROPERTY LAWS -----LAND RENT-----but it is critical in rebuilding our US CITIES we do so MINUS these LAND RENT policies.
So, as we discuss COMMON OR PUBLIC GROUND-------we shouted all our Baltimore City PUBLIC PARKS AND INSTITUTIONAL property has or is being privatized to global NGOS-----as we discuss the attack on private property ownership by EMINENT DOMAIN now being used by GLOBAL CORPORATIONS in expanding these GLOBAL CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS in all directions with our US 99% WE THE PROPERTY OWNERS having absolutely no ability to stop these LAND GRABS by what is called MOVING FORWARD RE-THINKING LAND USE.
Should You Buy Property on Leased Land?
Amy Fontinelle
February 17, 2017 — 9:44 AM EST
The most traditional form of home ownership is to own both a house and the land upon which it is built. Those who can't afford houses, or who do not want to be bothered with outside maintenance and upkeep, may purchase condos or townhouses. However, there is another homeownership option: buying only the home and leasing the land it occupies.
Purchasing a home in a leased land community enables you to own a home that you otherwise wouldn't be able to afford. However, this type of purchase lacks some of the benefits of traditional home ownership and has other significant drawbacks. Would this unusual ownership setup work for you? Read on to find out.
The Basics
With a trained eye, you can usually spot a leased-land property, even when it is not explicitly stated. Keywords to look for include "manufactured home" and "leasehold interest." Exterior features of the home might be described in terms, such as "association pool" or "association tennis courts." Also, the price of leased property tends to be far below market value. For example, if the going rate for a traditional three-bedroom, two-bathroom, 1,600 square foot is around $500,000, a comparable home on leased land may only cost $150,000. A leased property home may also have unusually upscale features for its price.
Steep homeowners' association (HOA) fees also indicate that a listing may be for a leased-land property. A normal HOA fee might be around $250 per month, while an HOA fee on a leased-land property might be $900 per month. Another giveaway is that if you look at a satellite map of the neighborhood where the home is located, you may notice that the homes are closer together than usual and are extremely similar to one another. Finally, in a typical neighborhood, some homes have their own pools, while in a leased-land community none of them will.
Real estate listings don't always list leased-land property. Sometimes, key information is left out of a real estate listing because of an agent's sloppiness, or because the agent or seller is trying to hide something. Investigate the hidden facts, and never purchase a leased-land property without thoroughly understanding the unusual features of this type of home ownership.
Types of Leased-Land Properties
There are several types of residential leased-land properties, and the most common type varies by region. In Hawaii and Delaware, there are leasehold condos. In areas with Native American reservations, such as Palm Springs, you may be able to purchase property on leased reservation land. In Los Angeles, where even homes in the suburbs far exceed prices the average person can afford, there are leased-land properties in suburban areas, such as Simi Valley and Canyon Country. Florida and Arizona have a number of leased-land retirement communities as well.
Leased-land properties exist in other areas, but because leasing land is an unconventional way to purchase property, this option is not available in every state. Trailer parks, perhaps the most common form of leased-land community, can be found almost anywhere.
When you buy a house or condo on leased land, you'll take out a mortgage on the property as usual. The monthly mortgage payment will be less because the home's purchase price is lower, but you'll also have to pay a significant monthly land lease fee. Because land lease properties are often located in entire communities of similar properties, a leased-land property may also come with HOA fees to cover the upkeep of landscaping, community pools, community buildings, etc.
General Considerations
If you think that buying a property on leased land may be right for you, you should consider the following.
- How much time is remaining on the lease? If the length of the remaining lease is shorter than you plan to remain in the home, it is imperative to find out what happens to your interest in the property at the end of the lease term. The lease term will also affect your ability to finance the home. It may be difficult or impossible to get a mortgage if the remaining lease term on the land is 20 years and you want a 30-year mortgage. Ideally, a lease that exceeds your potential remaining lifespan will protect your financial interests and your peace of mind. Of course, while you may not live in this home for the rest of your life, it's nice to have that option. And if you sell the home, a long remaining lease term will positively affect your sale price.
- What are the terms of the surrender clause? Check the terms of the surrender clause if the lease will run out while you still own the house. If the lease expires and is not renewed, you will have to give up the use of the land upon which your home is built. Some surrender clauses stipulate that you also must surrender any improvements to the land (i.e., your condo, townhouse or house). Avoid ugly surprises by getting the information before you buy.
- How much is the monthly land lease payment, how often does it adjust, and by how much? If there are HOA fees, ask the same questions about those. You want to make sure that you really will be saving money by buying a leased-land property, and that you won't one day be forced to move by escalating costs.
- Am I better off renting? Consider whether owning a home on leased land is really superior to renting. The two are similar in many ways, including a payment of monthly fees that are determined by another party. Owning a traditional home may give you a greater degree of freedom; if that is important to you, it may be worth the wait to save up for a down payment or increase your income enough to qualify for a good mortgage on a traditional home.
Buying a home on leased land offers the following advantages.
- You purchase the home for much less than a traditional home because you don't have to buy the land.
- Leased-land properties are often better than apartment living for children and pets, and you can invest the money that leasing saves you.
- Buyers can live in a high-priced location they could not otherwise afford. For example, in Huntington Beach, Calif., there are several mobile home communities near the Pacific Ocean. To buy even an entry-level house in Huntington Beach, you might need around $400,000. Buying an entry-level home in a trailer park, by comparison, could cost as little as $40,000.
- Leased-land communities often include amenities not always found in traditional neighborhoods, such as clubhouses, pools, tennis courts, playgrounds and golf courses. Because of the community association aspect, any HOA fees may include having your lawn mowed on a regular basis.
- Because you don't own the land, you'll likely have low or no property taxes, which can help take some of the sting out of paying leased land and HOA fees. In some areas, local laws restrict the amount by which leased land fees can increase annually.
The following are the disadvantages to this form of home ownership.
- The most significant downside to owning a home on leased land relates to building equity. For many people, home ownership is a major source of wealth. With a leased-land property, you risk losing all of your equity at lease expiration, depending on the terms of the surrender clause. The resale of the home is likely to be more difficult than the resale of a traditional home, especially because with each passing year, the remaining term on the lease shortens. For this reason, if you want to leave something to your heirs, a home on leased land will not be nearly as valuable to them as a traditional home.
- Leased-land properties are often part of an HOA, which means extra monthly fees that are somewhat unpredictable. While HOA fees are typically a set amount each month, they can rise annually. The HOA can also levy a special assessment for major community property repairs or upgrades, creating a large, unexpected bill. HOA fees can be particularly troublesome for those who do not make use of common amenities like pools, or who would prefer to do their own landscaping to save money.
- While traditional home ownership can be a good hedge against inflation, owning a leased-land property is not. When you buy a home with a fixed-rate mortgage, your payment remains the same each year as inflation goes up. Eventually, the monthly payment to own your home might be lower than renting in your neighborhood. And while home values fluctuate, over the long-term price increases typically match or surpass the rate of inflation. In a leased-land community, your monthly lease payments and HOA fees will probably increase at least by as much as the rate of inflation. Meanwhile, your home will become less valuable as the end of the lease term approaches.
- If you have a manufactured home on leased land and the lease expires (and the surrender clause does not require you to relinquish the property), you can theoretically take them home with you to another leased-land community or to a plot of land you have purchased. However, this is not very realistic unless you are purchasing a trailer home. Otherwise, you will have to have the house disassembled and transported to a new plot of land. This may be very impractical and is likely to be prohibitively expensive.
The Bottom Line
Buying a home on leased land can be tempting when you see the low sale price, but the purchase involves many complexities that traditional home buying does not. Traditional home ownership probably creates the greatest financial security for most people, but buying a home on leased land may be a viable alternative for those whose major priority is buying into a particular community at a lower price than a traditional home or condominium, rather than building equity.
_________________________________________
In the US the DARK AGES OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS policies used to control who could OWN LAND came to colonial US hitting the SOUTH with what were thousand-year old policies of TENET/SHARECROPPER land rents. When global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS pushed continuous wars being CIVIL WAR with goals of breaking down the PLANTATION ---AGRICULTURAL SOUTH to expand the INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION the tensions in the south became who could own that land once huge PLANTATIONS?
So, our southern states are largely tied to LAND RENTS------this is why BALTIMORE is still tied to colonial LAND RENT policies.
Meanwhile, our US cities in north used LAND TRUSTS to make sure land ownership stayed with those same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS----creating BOARDS AND TRUSTEES ----those 5% freemason/Greek players working to assure OLD WORLD KINGS had control of all that land.
Below we see our great PRETENDERS----global hedge fund OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS HARVARD using all kinds of fancy statistical models to pretend there are considerations about who owns land in US cities-----and who are the HOMEOWNERS on land that is LAND RENT.
'WHAT ARE CITIES WORTH? LAND RENTS, LOCAL PRODUCTIVITY,
AND THE TOTAL VALUE OF AMENITIES
David Albouy*
The Review of Economics and Statistics,
July 2016, 98(3): 477–487
©
2016 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
doi:10.1162/REST_a_00550'
The article above written in 2016 -----looks just like an article written by global banking 1% 300 years ago. So, our US southern states are seeing the earliest MOVING FORWARD of property handed to GLOBAL FACTORIES-------soon to expand and take 99% WE THE SOUTHERN private property owners' LAND RIGHTS----and the same is happening in our northern and western states installing MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES------GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUSES.
So, our US slaves as freemen never got those 40 acres and a mule because the southern states kept those colonial LAND RENT policies. Today's US city development is tying heavily on LAND TRUSTS all tying property ownership to same global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
Farmers Without Land: The Plight of White Tenant Farmers and Sharecroppers
By Charles C. Bolton
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Mississippi was an overwhelmingly agricultural state. While farming provided a route to economic success for many white Mississippians, a number of whites could always be found at the bottom of the agricultural ladder, working as tenant farmers or sharecroppers, a status more typically associated with black Mississippians in the century after the American Civil War.
Before examining the history of Mississippi’s white tenant farmers and sharecroppers, some definition of these terms might be helpful. Both tenant farmers and sharecroppers were farmers without farms. A tenant farmer typically paid a landowner for the right to grow crops on a certain piece of property. Tenant farmers, in addition to having some cash to pay rent, also generally owned some livestock and tools needed for successful farming.
Sharecroppers, on the other hand, were even more impoverished than tenant farmers. With few resources and little or no cash, sharecroppers agreed to farm a certain plot of land in exchange for a share of the crops they raised. The exact amount of crops the sharecropper gave over to the landowner depended on the agreement with the landowner.
The tenant/sharecropping system
Although the tenant/sharecropping system is usually thought of as a development that occurred after the Civil War, this type of farming existed in antebellum Mississippi, especially in the areas of the state with few slaves or plantations, such as northeast Mississippi.
Not all whites who emigrated to even the poorest parts of Mississippi in the years before the Civil War had the funds to purchase a farm. As a result, most of the men who headed these households worked as tenant farmers or sharecroppers. Many rented land from or farmed on shares with family members and typically received favorable arrangements, but some antebellum tenants or sharecroppers had to deal with landlords who were primarily concerned with making profits rather than helping struggling farmers move toward landownership.
Consider the sharecropping arrangement that Richard Bridges of Marshall County worked out with his landlord, T. L. Treadwell, in the 1850s. Treadwell provided Bridges with land, livestock, and tools; the landlord also advanced Bridges some food. Bridges grew corn and cotton, and at the end of the year, he had to give Treadwell one-sixth of the corn he grew and five-sixths of the cotton raised. From his share of the crop, Bridges also had to pay Treadwell for the use of the livestock and tools and for the food advanced. Obviously, Bridges worked the entire year primarily for the food he needed to live. He had no opportunity to make any money from this arrangement and accumulate the capital that would allow him to purchase his own farm.
The postbellum farmer
After the Civil War, tenant farming and sharecropping became a way of life for the vast majority of Mississippi farmers. Freed African-American slaves generally had no resources or access to credit to purchase land, and most of Mississippi’s black population that worked in agriculture in the late 19th and early 20th centuries became sharecroppers. With Mississippi’s devastated economy in the years following the Civil War, increasing numbers of white landowning farmers were also reduced to the status of landless farmer.
Many of Mississippi’s small white landowning farmers, also known as yeoman farmers, had not been heavily involved in the cotton economy before the Civil War; however, after the war, a number of factors led the white yeoman farmers to turn increasingly to cotton cultivation. They needed cash to pay off debts acquired during four years of war and the increased taxes levied during Reconstruction and beyond. In addition, new railroad lines built after the war improved access to distant markets and encouraged the development of commercial agriculture among formerly subsistence farmers (subsistence farmers are those who grow crops primarily to feed themselves, their families, and their livestock, rather than to make a profit).
Unfortunately, the price of cotton began a long period of decline in the late 1860s, and many of those white yeomen who had staked their future on cotton production lost their farms. When they did, they frequently became tenant farmers or sharecroppers. By 1900, 36 percent of all white farmers in Mississippi were either tenant farmers or sharecroppers (by comparison, 85 percent of all black farmers in 1900 did not own the land they farmed).
The crop-lien system
For the postbellum tenant farmer or sharecropper, life became an endless cycle of landlessness, debt, and poverty. Sharecroppers faced the most hopeless situation, as most became enmeshed in what was known as the crop-lien system. An 1867 Mississippi law provided that landlords could claim a lien on the crops of their workers for any debts incurred during the growing season.
Almost all farmers who worked as sharecroppers did have to acquire debt. Most sharecroppers began the crop year needing to buy supplies, not only to help raise their crop, but also to keep themselves and their families alive until harvest time. The only thing they had to offer for collateral was the crop they were going to try to raise. So, the sharecropper would turn to a “furnishing merchant,” who might be the landowner or perhaps a neighborhood merchant, who would exchange food and supplies for a lien on next year’s crop. Some landowners who provided a “furnish” (supplies and food) might merely require a greater share of the crop as payment at year’s end. For instance, Elizabeth Brown, whose family oversaw black and white sharecropper families in Perry County in the early 20th century, remembered that the typical share paid by sharecroppers was one-fourth of the crop they raised, but “when we furnished them, we got half of the crop.”
Other furnishing merchants kept accounts during the year of the debts incurred by their sharecroppers, and at the end of the year, at “settlement time,” the merchant would deduct these charges from the sharecropper’s share of the crop. Oftentimes, the debt exceeded the amount the sharecropper made from his share of the crop, and his only alternatives were to sign on for another year with the same landowner/merchant or move on to another farm. In both cases, the cycle of debt and landlessness remained unbroken.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act
While tenant farmers were perhaps somewhat better off than sharecroppers, most tenant farmers were only one bad crop away from slipping into the cycle of debt common among sharecroppers. Both tenant farmers and sharecroppers were significantly poorer than their landed neighbors. Struggling from year to year to acquire the basic necessities of life, tenants and sharecroppers rarely acquired the consumer goods that were increasingly available in the 20th century. A 1942 study by the state of Mississippi found that only 10 percent of white sharecroppers had refrigerators, while only 14 percent owned radios. Landowners in the state were three times as likely to own these same items.
The tenant/sharecropping system in Mississippi, and throughout the South, began to die out during the 1940s and 1950s. The Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933 led many landowners in the state to take part of their lands out of cultivation in exchange for funds offered by the federal government. Thus, landowners eliminated their tenant and sharecropper plots. The AAA program was one of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal measures designed to end the Great Depression. This program was designed to reduce farm output in order to raise farm prices. An unintended consequence of the program, however, was the displacement of tenant farmers and sharecroppers.
The AAA did provide Mississippi landowners with much-needed cash, and in the 1940s and 1950s, landowners used these funds to take advantage of technological advances that improved their ability to raise crops like cotton. Landowners bought tractors to break the land, bought newly developed cotton harvesters to pick their crops, and bought pesticides to rid their fields of weeds (previously “chopped out” by tenants and sharecroppers). In the process, Mississippi’s system of farm tenancy and sharecropping quickly came to an end.
Charles C. Bolton, Ph. D., is chair and professor, department of history, University of Southern Mississippi, and co-director of the university’s Center for Oral History and Cultural Heritage. He is the author of Poor Whites of the Antebellum South: Tenants and Laborers in Central North Carolina and Northeast Mississippi, and co-editor of The Confessions of Edward Isham: A Poor White Life of the Old South.
Posted March 2004
________________________________________
We discuss often and in detail how our once sovereign US corporations are no longer US AMERICAN ----they are owned by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS. General Electric for example was sold decades ago to overseas global corporations. When we watch these GLOBAL FACTORIES being built earliest in the south----we can be sure the land handed to these GLOBAL FACTORIES are very likely the same land held in TRUST once being huge plantations. After civil war those PLANTATION LAND OWNERS ----GONE WITH THE WIND----no doubt were handed property ownership in northern or western states leaving our US 99% WE THE SOUTHERN CITIZENS to live as the same TENET/SHARECROPPER land renters as before the civil war.
Try as global banking 1% FAKE NEWS MEDIA like CNBC does to show a UNITED STATES FLAG on all these GLOBAL FACTORY land deals-----nothing US is happening in who owns all this PROPERTY in our US cities/counties.
There's no LABORATORY for PROGRESSIVE ideas on land and property ownership happening today------it is the same DARK AGES 1000BC public policies having OLD WORLD KINGS owning all property maybe allowing a global 2% to build a MCMANSION/CASTLE on that property.
Manufacturing Jobs Making a Comeback in Southern U.S.Michelle V. Rafter , NBC News contributor
Published 11:40 AM ET Thu, 20 Dec 2012 Updated 4:14 PM ET Fri, 21 Dec 2012 NBC NEWS
Tetra Images | Getty Images
Apple CEO Tim Cook's announcement earlier this month that the company will start building Macs closer to home in 2013 was seen as a milestone that could help jump-start U.S. manufacturing.
But over the past few years, factories in the American South from the Carolinas to Alabama to Kentucky have already experienced such are birth.
Both U.S. and foreign companies have opened plants in south eastern states in recent years, many since the end of the recession.Others are expanding existing plants or have plans to break ground in 2013.
In South Carolina, Boeing builds 787 Dreamliners just north of Charleston, and Starbucks roasts coffee beans in St. Matthews, outside Columbia.
General Electric is once again making water heaters and refrigerators at its gigantic Appliance Park plant in Louisville, Ky. A Mobile, Ala., shipyard run by Austal USA is growing so quickly that in the past two years the Australian company's workforce has swollen from 800 to 3,300.
Over the past year, North Carolina's Secretary of Commerce Keith Crisco says about 80 percent of the new companies coming to the state involved some form of manufacturing. "That's a big number for us, and the jobs are better than they were," he said.
Companies are taking advantage of state- and local-funded business incentives and convenient transportation routes, as well as the Southeastern U.S.'s lower cost of living and a largely non-union labor force that's inexpensive relative to other parts of the country.
Although hundreds of thousands of factory jobs have disappeared in the South and across the country over the past two decades due to automation and outsourcing to cheaper labor markets in China, Vietnam and elsewhere, the United States remains a manufacturing powerhouse.
The country still produces 18.2 percent of the world's manufactured goods, edging out China's 17.6 percent, according to the latest figures from the National Association of Manufacturers and World Bank.
Today, however, even Chinese companies are building factories in the Southeast, ducking rising labor costs at home, and to be closer to customers and take advantage of the region's pro-business policies.One of the first was appliance maker Haier Group, which opened a $40 million refrigerator factory in Camden, S.C., a dozen years ago.
One of the latest is Lenovo Group, which operates a fulfillment center in Whitsett, N.C. In October, Lenovo announced plans to begin making ThinkPads there in 2013, adding an estimated 115 jobs to an existing workforce of 2,200.
While factory jobs haven't returned to pre-recession levels,they're getting there. In Georgia and Tennessee, manufacturing employment grew 3 percent in the 12 months ending in October, nearly twice the national average of 1.6 percent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Factory employment was above average in Alabama (2.9 percent), South Carolina (2.4 percent) and Mississippi (2 percent) as well.
"It's a business climate like you won't find anywhere else,"says Doug Woodward, an economics professor at the University of South Carolina and incoming president of the North American Regional Science Council, which studies local economies.
Low-cost labor is one of the region's big draws. Economists cite the lack of a large union presence as a benefit since it allows companies to move factory workers from job to job as needs change. In seven Southern states, union members account for less than 5 percent of the workforce. That's less than half of the 11.8 percent national average, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
"It's all about flexibility," said Brian Leathers, Austal's chief financial officer and senior vice president, to NBC News. "Because we treat our people properly --benefits, pay, safe working conditions -- there's not a need for representation."
However, critics point to academic and economic research showing that in right-to-work states, wages and benefits are lower. "They're just not as well compensated," says Matthew W. Finkin, an employment law expert and professor at the University of Illinois' law school .
"So they're creating more jobs and giving more work to people, but they're not giving the benefits and other aspects of employee protections (workers would) have in other states if they were in (a) union."
The local chapter of the Sheet Metal Workers International Association has been unsuccessful in three attempts to organize Austal's Mobile, Ala., shipyard. A representative of Local 441 could not be reached for comment. A representative of the SMWIA's national office declined to comment.
Crisco maintains that manufacturing jobs coming into the South pay more because they require more technical skills.
He argues that right-to-work laws are only one factor drawing companies to the region, along with generous workforce training programs and incentives such as tax breaks that South Carolina gives to companies making substantial capital investments in the area.
"Sure, it's controversial about incentives, but in terms of locating manufacturing jobs here, it's been fairly successful," Woodward says.
Here's a look at activity in a handful of southern states where manufacturing jobs are on the rise:
South Carolina
South Carolina's manufacturing industry lost 100,000 jobs during the 2000s before the 2007-2009 recession wiped out another 40,000,Woodward says.
Recent moves by Boeing, BMW, Michelin, and other tire and auto parts manufacturers and durable goods makers to open or expand factories have reversed that trend. Boeing alone created 8,000 new jobs in the past two years, Woodward says.
"We've gained 10,000 to 15,000 jobs," he says. "Our immediate prospects are very good, but it's going to be a long road if we're going to recover" historic manufacturing employment levels.
In January, BMW said it would add 300 people to an existing workforce of 7,000 at a highly automated auto manufacturing plant in Greer, the company's largest factory outside of Germany. The expansion will to boost annual production to 350,000 by 2014.
"The deep roots of the workforce here in manufacturing are really helpful and we developed a close relationship with the local tech colleges to improve our workforce," BMW Manufacturing President Josef Kerscher said in a late November talk at the University of South Carolina's Darla Moore School of Business. "I'm really satisfied seeing how well prepared our workforce is for advanced manufacturing."
North Carolina
The textile and apparel makers that made up the bulk ofNorth Carolina's traditional manufacturing sector "left and are not coming back,"Crisco says. They're being replaced with companies like Lenovo, which is movingThinkPad manufacturing to the state from Mexico.
Jeld-Wen, an Oregon-based window and door maker, announced on Dec. 13 that it is moving its North American headquarters to Charlotte,adding 142 management and administrative jobs. The company already operates two manufacturing plants in the area with 2,200 employees.
In 2012, manufacturing accounts for 20 percent of North Carolina's gross domestic product, and that doesn't include recently announced deals that will add to manufacturing employment in the near future, Crisco says.
Alabama
In Mobile, Austal is building high-speed, aluminum ships forthe U.S. Navy, made to quickly deliver troops to a war zone or disaster area.
Austal is one of many foreign companies that have opened factories in and around Mobile in the past decade, a group that includes Mercedes Benz, Honda, Toyota and Hyundai. In 2013, Airbus will join the list.
The European aircraft manufacturer is expected to break ground on a $600 million complex in 2013 and begin assembling planes there two years later, creating 1,000 jobs, according to the Mobile Area Chamber of Commerce.
Though mega deals like the one with Airbus get the most attention,94 percent of factories in the tri-county area around Mobile are domestic, says chamber spokeswoman Susan Rak-Blanchard. Attracting smaller companies that bring 50 to 150 jobs to the area has been "our bread and butter over the years," she says.
Kentucky
The number of people working at GE's famed Appliance Park industrial complex in Louisville peaked at 23,000 in the early 1970s before starting to drop a decade later and hitting bottom in 2011 at less than 2,000,according to a recent report in The Atlantic.
In February, the company returned to the plant, making low-energy water heaters there instead of having them built by a Chinese contractor. A month later, GE moved a refrigerator assembly line from Mexico to the plant, according to the report. (GE is a minority owner in NBCUniversal.)
So far, GE has poured $800 million into revamping manufacturing operations at the facility, including $150 million on a new dishwasher assembly line. According to the company, factory workers helped design the line to be faster and safer, and as a result per-unit production time has dropped 65 percent.
"Companies are looking for a lower cost place to do business and a skilled workforce," said David King, Central South Carolina Alliance marketing vice president. "It doesn't get more basic than that."
_____________________________________________
We saw lots of media and academic writing these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA telling us developers were being allowed to build small communities in and around our NATIONAL PARKS on land once set aside for natural environmental protection. Many are expensive homes build by CA MERELY rich getting away from all that US FAILED STATE CITIES ----building on land owned by US NATIONAL PARK------not owning the LAND/PROPERTY RIGHTS.
These are the same areas being burnt by wildfires as global mining corporations are being handed the LAND-OWNERSHIP of what were US NATIONAL PARKS and all those SET-ASIDES for infrastructure.
So, the MERELY RICH being those upper-tier global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are literally being burnt out of HOUSE AND HOME ----while our southern states ---like MARYLAND AND BALTIMORE are seeing our US 99% WE THE HOMEOWNERS---pushed off by GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS.
We have always known our US national and state parks were LAND TRUSTS. We have always been fighting to keep those LAND TRUSTS---PUBLIC. When global 'environmental' groups like SIERRA CLUB spend these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA----they knew our US NATIONAL PARKS would be privatized and devastated as global banking 1% CLINTON NEO-LIBERALS are the great PRIVATIZERS of PUBLIC LAND.
Heather Hansman ----pretending to be an outdoor/environmental media reporter tied to global banking 1% FAKE NEWS media outlets like THE GUARDIAN and NPR -----knows what was MOVING FORWARD these few decades of CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA for our US national parks
'Our Last Reading List Of The Summer Takes Us Outside : NPR
www.npr.org/2018/09/10/644848324/our-last...
Our Last Reading List Of The Summer Takes Us Outside As we head into fall, Heather Hansman, a correspondent for Outside magazine, shares some of her favorite new books'.
Congress just made it easier to sell off federal land, including national parks
Heather Hansman,
The Guardian
Jan. 20, 2017, 8:00 AM
In the midst of highly publicized steps to dismantle insurance coverage for 32 million people and defund women's healthcare facilities, Republican lawmakers have quietly laid the foundation to give away Americans' birthright: 640m acres of national land.In a single line of changes to the rules for the House of Representatives, Republicans have overwritten the value of federal lands, easing the path to disposing of federal property even if doing so loses money for the government and provides no demonstrable compensation to American citizens.
At stake are areas managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Forests and Federal Wildlife Refuges, which contribute to an estimated $646bn each year in economic stimulus from recreation on public lands and 6.1m jobs. Transferring these lands to the states, critics fear, could decimate those numbers by eliminating mixed-use requirements, limiting public access and turning over large portions for energy or property development.
In addition to economic stimulus from outdoor activities, federal land creates revenue through oil and gas production, logging and other industrial uses. According to the BLM, in 2016, it made $2bn in royalty revenue from federal leases. The Outdoor Industry Association estimates federal tax revenue from the recreation economy at almost $40bn.
Ignoring those figures, the new language for the House budget, authored by Utah Republican representative Rob Bishop, who has a history of fighting to transfer public land to the states, says that federal land is effectively worthless. Transferring public land to "state, local government or tribal entity shall not be considered as providing new budget authority, decreasing revenues, increasing mandatory spending or increasing outlays."
Essentially, the revised budget rules deny that federal land has any value at all, allowing the new Congress to sidestep requirements that a bill giving away a piece of federal land does not decrease federal revenue or contribute to the federal debt.
Republican eagerness to cede federal land to local governments for possible sale, mining or development is already moving states to act. Western states, where most federal land is concentrated, are already introducing legislation that pave the way for land transfers.
In Wyoming, for example, the 2017 senate has introduced a joint resolution that would amend the state constitution to dictate how public land given to the state by the federal government after 2019 is managed. It has little public support, but Wyoming Senate President Eli Bebout said that he thought the state should be preemptively thinking about what it would do with federal land.
The Congressional devaluation of national property is the most far-reaching legislative change in a recent push to transfer federal lands to the states. Because of the Republican majority in Congress, bills proposing land transfers could now swiftly diminish Forest Service and BLM lands across the country.
"We didn't see it coming. I think it was sneaky and underhanded. It exemplifies an effort to not play by the rules," said Alan Rowsome, senior director of government relations at The Wilderness Society. "This is the worst Congress for public lands ever."
Rowsome said he's not exactly sure how the rule will be used, but he thinks the first places to come under attack might include areas adjacent to the majestic Grand Canyon National Park in Arizona and Minnesota's Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. Those areas hold uranium and copper, respectively.Rowsome said he's worried that sensitive tracts of public land, like the oil-rich Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, could soon be up for sale. Some 60% percent of Alaska is made up of national land, and the state's representatives have tried to pass laws claiming parts of it for state use as recently as 2015. "It's amazing ecosystem and worthy of protection, and it's very likely that House Republican majority will open that up for drilling," Rowsome said.
This latest effort comes on the heels of a bill adopted in 2016 that directs the Department of Agriculture to transfer 2m acres of eligible Forest Service lands to each state.
Giving away national land has been part of the Republican Party platform since the mid-80s, after Reagan declared himself a Sagebrush Rebel, but it's regained steam in the past few years as 20 states have introduced some form of legislation suggesting that federal property be given to local governments.
In 2015, Bishop and fellow Utah representative Chris Stewart formed the Federal Land Action Group, a congressional team with the specific intent to come up with a framework for transferring public land. "Washington bureaucrats don't listen to people," Bishop said in a statement. "Local governments do."
But Rowsome argues that's a populist message without any popular support, pushed by a small faction of legislators with support from industries like mining and energy. Despite the Republican message that Washington has overstepped in designating national parks and monuments, a 2016 study found that 95% of the American public believes that National Parks are worth protecting and 80% said they'd be willing to pay higher taxes to do so.
"Western Republicans that are perpetuating the idea are very well funded by the oil and gas industry during their campaign," Rowsome said. "It's special interests wielding power for an agenda that will advance their goal. Nearly 90% of BLM lands are already open, but they can't stop trying to get more."
A 2016 Colorado College survey of seven western states found that 60% of voters rejected both the sale of public lands to states and giving states control without sale.
In 2012, Arizona voters struck down two pieces of legislation that would have turned over federal land to the state, including one that claimed the Grand Canyon as state land.
Opponents fear that local governments, especially in states with small budgets, won't be able to invest in management and will sell off land to make money. Last summer, the Forest Service was spending $240m a week to suppress wildfires, and the Department of Interior estimates the cost of deferred maintenance, like updating roads, at around $11bn.
In December, Wyoming Governor Matt Mead said that transferring public land to his state was legally and financially impractical. He cited firefighting costs on public land as something that the state budget wouldn't have room for.
Historically, when federal lands have been transferred to states, they have become less accessible. Idaho sold off almost 100,000 acres of its public land between 2000 and 2009. In Colorado, access has been limited the public can only use 20% of state trust land for hunting and fishing.
John Gale, conservation director for the advocacy group Backcountry Hunters and Anglers, said that he's worried about access for sportsmen. He believes that there's a further danger in segmenting ecosystems through state-by-state development.
"70% of the headwaters of our streams and rivers in the West are on public lands," he said. "Rivers and migratory corridors don't follow state boundaries."
The incoming administration hasn't been clear about where it falls on transfers. Montana Congressman Ryan Zinke, tapped to be the next Secretary of Interior, voted for the rules package, but in the past he's been against land transfers. President-elect Donald Trump has spoken out against reallocating federal land, but he's also met with prominent pro-land transfer groups.
Nevertheless, bills proposing land transfer will now have an easy route to passage, as they won't need to be backed by any financial justification.
The entire rules package passed on party lines, but it runs counter to legislation that passed both the House and Senate in November, the Outdoor Recreation Jobs and Economic Impact Act of 2016.
Signed into law in December, the legislation requires the Department of Commerce to count the over half a trillion dollars from the outdoor recreation economy in the country's GDP for the first time.
"It's not just natural resources that are on the auction block, but jobs," said Gale. "For a party that prides itself on being fiscally conservative ... they're talking out of both sides of their mouth."
_______________________________________________
Just as with homeowners buying homes a developer was allowed to build in FLOODPLAINS-----most homeowners building in FORESTED CALIFORNIA which has declared these mountain ranges owned/controlled by global mining corporations are of course being told they cannot REBUILD A HOUSE EXACTLY LIKE THE ONE BURNED DOWN----just as our HOMEOWNERS on floodplains are now being told their HOMEOWNERS' insurance will not cover rebuilding the EXACT HOUSE because land once declared NOT ON FLOODPLAIN is now deemed FLOODPLAIN. So, these are all tactics built by global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH.OBAMA to assure our US 99% WE THE PROPERTY OWNERS are no longer able to be LAND OWNERS.
Whether global banking 1% are using GLOBAL CORPORATE CAMPUS FOOTPRINTS----our using FRAUDULENT WATER OR PROPERTY TAXES----or using PROPERTY INSURANCE-----all of the above is tied to MOVING FORWARD LAND OWNERSHIP making sure US land is only owned by global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
BUY THIS EXTENDED WARRANTY HOMEOWNER INSURANCE -----THAT WILL COVER PROPERTY DAMAGE 'NEXT TIME' SAYS GLOBAL BANKING 1% PREDATORY INSURANCE CORPORATIONS-----OH, REALLY???
Do Insurance Companies Cover Homes Destroyed by a Forest Fire?
March 13, 2011
By: Tom Johnson
Forest fires can occur at any time and have the potential to devastate a community or an entire region. For instance, wildfires destroyed 2,180 homes in Southern California in October 2007. Your homeowner's insurance policy covers the destruction of your home from a wildfire. However, the amount of coverage you have depends on the type of policy you purchase and any extra coverage you select.
Forest fires can occur at any time and have the potential to devastate a community or an entire region. For instance, wildfires destroyed 2,180 homes in Southern California in October 2007. Your homeowner's insurance policy covers the destruction of your home from a wildfire. However, the amount of coverage you have depends on the type of policy you purchase and any extra coverage you select.
Homeowner's insurance covers homes destroyed by forest fires.Dwelling CoverageThe dwelling coverage of a homeowner's insurance policy provides compensation to help homeowners rebuild or replace a destroyed home. However, the dwelling coverage of many homeowner insurance policies is limited. If the cost to rebuild your home exceeds the dwelling limit, you may have to either build a smaller home or pay the additional costs yourself. Furthermore, the dwelling coverage only covers what it would cost you to build a home with the exact specifications and features of the destroyed home.
Building Code Upgrade CoverageDue to changes in local building ordinances, your community's building department may not allow you to build your home exactly as it was before the fire. For instance, some wildfire-prone communities require that all newly built home have roofs made of fire-retardant materials. Others require the installation of interior fire sprinklers. The dwelling coverage of your policy only covers up to the cost of rebuilding your home exactly as it was before the fire. To protect yourself against the cost of code upgrades, purchase a policy that contains this provision.
Forest fires can occur at any time and have the potential to devastate a community or an entire region. For instance, wildfires destroyed 2,180 homes in Southern California in October 2007. Your homeowner's insurance policy covers the destruction of your home from a wildfire. However, the amount of coverage you have depends on the type of policy you purchase and any extra coverage you select.
Homeowner's insurance covers homes destroyed by forest fires.Dwelling CoverageThe dwelling coverage of a homeowner's insurance policy provides compensation to help homeowners rebuild or replace a destroyed home. However, the dwelling coverage of many homeowner insurance policies is limited. If the cost to rebuild your home exceeds the dwelling limit, you may have to either build a smaller home or pay the additional costs yourself. Furthermore, the dwelling coverage only covers what it would cost you to build a home with the exact specifications and features of the destroyed home.
Building Code Upgrade CoverageDue to changes in local building ordinances, your community's building department may not allow you to build your home exactly as it was before the fire. For instance, some wildfire-prone communities require that all newly built home have roofs made of fire-retardant materials. Others require the installation of interior fire sprinklers. The dwelling coverage of your policy only covers up to the cost of rebuilding your home exactly as it was before the fire. To protect yourself against the cost of code upgrades, purchase a policy that contains this provision.
If the dwelling coverage limit of your policy is not enough to rebuild your home, you may be able to receive additional money if your policy has extended replacement cost coverage. The limit of this coverage is usually 25 percent of the dwelling coverage limit. For instance, if you have a dwelling policy limit of $200,000, the extended replacement cost coverage limit would be $50,000. If the cost to rebuild your home turns out to be $225,000, you would receive the $200,000 dwelling limit and $25,000 in extended replacement cost benefits. If it costs $300,000 to rebuild your home, you would receive only $250,000.
Other StructuresThe other structures coverage of your homeowner's policy provides protection for detached garages, guest houses and other structures not permanently attached to your home. This is a standard coverage for most homeowner insurance policies and the coverage limit is typically set at 10 percent of the dwelling coverage limit.
________________________________________
GROUND RENT is the same as LAND RENT and below we see a global banking 5% freemason/Greek player as PEOPLE'S LAWYER pretending to be fighting against these colonial LAND RENT policies here in Baltimore and Maryland. This lawyer says nothing about MOVING FORWARD US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE designation killing any ability of our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE being able to be LAND OWNERS------he does not say that the MARYLAND CONSTITUTION is just as invalidated as our US CONSTITUTION when our Maryland ATTORNEY GENERAL FROSH pushes SANCTUARY CITY/STATE policies making all of MARYLAND private property to be owned by ONLY GLOBAL CORPORATIONS owned by OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS.
'Ground Rent Legislation Controversy
On behalf of a coalition of displeased ground rent owners, attorney and ground rent trustee Charles Muskin filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s new laws prohibiting new ground rents and forcing ground leaseholders to comply with the State’s registry requirements'.
So, yes------we do need to end GROUND RENT in Baltimore City and Maryland----and NO these policies being pushed by a FAKE PEOPLE'S LAWYER telling us AMENDING MARYLAND CONSTITUTION will help our US 99% of WE THE BALTIMORE AND MARYLAND CITIZENS be LAND OWNERS-----this is all FALSE FLAG media-------meant to make our 99% whether US or new to US immigrants think something is being done to allow for LAND OWNERSHIP.
Buying your ground rent
Buying the ground rent that affects your property is one of the best investments that you will make. It takes your leasehold interest and converts it into a freehold one. You will own the "fee simple in possession", the best form of title available in English law. You will have the satisfaction that your home is fully your own. There will be no more rent to pay. While it is impossible to quantify the actual value this will add to your home, there is no question that it will make it a more attractive proposition for any purchaser.
The Morgoed Estates offer
We offer for sale all our ground rents at a fixed cost price plus Land Registry fees (usually around £40). For this price we will take care of all legal work to enable you to register your purchase.
We are also able to offer an easy payment plan that allows the purchase price to be spread for up to a year without charge. Please contact us for details.
How the process works
Once you have agreed and paid the purchase price, we will send back a confirmation letter and a preliminary form to complete. Full details of how to complete the form are provided. In particular, please note that we will require the full names of all owners of the property. This will then be processed and the relevant documents to transfer ownership to you will be drawn up and sent to you for signing.
You should check the forms for accuracy, sign in the two places indicated, attach a cheque for the required registration fee and then post off the completed package to the Land Registry in the stamped addressed envelope provided.
On completion of this process your new freehold interest will be registered at the Land Registry who will confirm this by sending you an official copy of the register.
This BUYING YOUR GROUND RENT policy is yet another global banking 1% PROPERTY SCHEME only in place to get more and more money from our 99% WE THE HOMEOWNERS thinking they are WINNERS by being allowed to BUY GROUND RENTS. At any time in MOVING FORWARD global banking 1% wants your GROUND---that GROUND RENT you bought will disappear after all those years of PAYING FOR THOSE GROUND RENT RIGHTS.
IT'S A TRAP-------as THE KRACKEN finds yet another way to bleed Baltimore and Maryland home-owners of more and more future financial gains on these homes.
MARYLAND PEOPLE'S LAW LIBRARY
Understanding Ground Rent in Maryland
Current Ground Rent Laws
What is Ground Rent?
Nearly unique to the Greater-Baltimore area, ground rent is a periodic monetary payment by a tenant to a ground leaseholder who holds a reversionary interest in the property or “ground” underneath a home. Specific terms and conditions are contingent on the actual language of the ground lease, but such leases often require payment from the lessee (homeowner) of between $50-150 per year, commonly paid in semi-annual installments.
In practical effect, a homeowner who is subject to a ground rent must make payment to a ground leaseholder for the right to dwell on the property. Full and timely payment to the leaseholder ensures this right perpetually, or until the lease expires and is not renewed.
Ground rent arrangements differ legally from a normal landlord-tenant relationship because the ground leaseholder has no reversionary interest in anything resting on the property or in the dwelling space built upon the property unless the leasehold tenant is delinquent in payment.
The absolute management and control of the property remains with the leasehold tenant so long as the ground rent is paid (Beehler v. Ijams, 72 Md. 193 (1890)). Consequently, the leasehold tenant has the authority to alter, remodel and reconstruct the property as s/he wills, but the tenant must ensure that their actions leave the reversioner’s rent secure (Crowe v. Wilson, 65 Md. 479, 484 (1886)).
The homeowner is responsible for maintenance of the land and any improvements on the land, including improvements made to the home itself (Kolker v. Biggs, 203 Md. 137, 141 (1953)). It is the sole responsibility of the homeowner to procure and make payment on any utilities that service the property.
When a home is purchased, the homeowner may determine if he or she is subject to payment of a ground rent by looking at the deed or by checking the property listing on the Multiple Listing Service Nationwide Database . If you are a ground rent tenant or leaseholder and you have a question, it is a good idea to contact an attorney.
Ground Rent Rights and Responsibilities
Title 8 of the Real Property Article of the Maryland Code dictates the laws regarding ground rents. Subtitle 7 governs registry of ground leases, and subtitle 8 governs residential ground leases.
The Department of Assessments and Taxation maintains an Online Registry of Properties that are subject to ground leases.. Ground leaseholders have to officially register their ground leases with the Department or face forfeiture of future collections on the leases. This system ensures that leaseholders and lessees have each other’s contact information so that collection problems need not arise through failure to receive payment notices.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-704
Registered ground leaseholders are entitled to a lien against the property for the amount owed, and the leaseholder may foreclose upon the lien if the rent goes unpaid after a reasonable time. These foreclosure rights are like that of a bank when it forecloses on a mortgage. The law is meant to ensure that when the lien is foreclosed upon, the homeowner retains the equity in his or her home despite the forfeiture of the property.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-402.3
If a ground lease is not registered, the ground lease holder may not:
1. Collect any ground rent payments due under the ground lease;
2. Bring a civil action against the leasehold tenant to enforce any rights the ground lease holder may have under the ground lease; or
3. Bring an action against the leasehold tenant under the ground rent laws.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-707
Redeeming (Purchasing) Your Ground Rent
Some residential ground rent tenants retain the right to “redeem” (purchase) the ground rent. The State of Maryland currently regulates the purchase prices for ground rents using a special algorithm. It accounts for both the leasehold value of the property as well as the lessee’s yearly earnings so as to prevent the leaseholder from creating excessive monetary barriers to redeeming one’s ground lease.
Ground rent lessees may obtain information regarding the purchase of their ground lease through the Department of Assessments and Taxation’s Ground Rent Redemption Program . If the leaseholder’s address is unknown, the tenant must post in a conspicuous place legal notice (sample notice available here ) of his or her intention to purchase. The lessee has 30 days to comply or else forfeit future collections pursuant to the lease.
Should you wish to purchase your ground rent but are unable to afford it, the Maryland Department of Housing and Community Development offers a Ground Rent Redemption Loan Program through which income-eligible homeowners may redeem their ground rent.
Read the Law:
Md. Real Prop. § 8-804
Background
The Historical Origins of Ground Rent
The concept of ground rent in Baltimore and surrounding counties may be traced back to colonial times, when colonists who wished to settle in the area paid taxes to Lord Baltimore for the right to do so.
As the old English lordship system was phased out, enterprising investors bought tracts of land from the newly sovereign colonial governments and allowed tenants who otherwise could not purchase land for themselves to make small, incremental rent payments as a less-expensive alternative to land ownership.
The practice was especially popular in the years following the American Revolution as many who were previously landowners were forced to begin again from scratch. What little wealth had been built in America’s infancy was in many cases erased by the War. Ground leases offered a post-war solution that required little initial investment, but afforded people with all the substantive perks of ownership, including a degree of sovereignty over their home.
The specific terms of these early leases were as arbitrary as they were various, but the popular practice was to set the leases to a term of 99 years with provisions for indefinite renewals thereafter so as to avoid the rule against perpetuities.
As the 99-year leases expired in the late 1800’s, only a very small percentage of them were actually renewed. The practice of drafting ground leases soon gave way to a higher rate of land ownership and more traditional landlord-tenant leases in which the landlord also owned the dwelling space.
Ground rents then resurfaced in Baltimore following the Second World War as investors bought up much of the land left vacant by those fighting overseas and drafted ground leases for the properties. When the GI’s returned to settle down and raise families, there was an enormous demand for low-cost home ownership in the City and surrounding counties. Many who were unable initially to afford both the land and the home built upon it jumped at the opportunity for small annual payments on the land in exchange for a larger initial investment in the home. Many of these leases, too, were drafted to expire after a period of 99 years, hence the lingering prevalence in the area.
Modern Ground Rent Developments
In the present day, ground rent is commonly viewed as a dying, yet no less legally binding, vestige of Maryland’s colonial past. Almost all of the remaining national instances of ground rent are confined to the Greater Baltimore area, isolated areas of Pennsylvania, and most of Hawaii.
Despite the irregular nature of ground rent law, many of the same provisions apply as to normal landlord-tenant relationships. If one pays his or her ground rent, the ground leaseholder receives payment on land that they own, and in return the lessee (homeowner) continues to justify his or her dwelling on the property.
The legal treatment of ground leases has created a problem, however. Grounds rents may be bought, sold, and passed to next of kin through wills, like a home or a family heirloom. The leasehold interest in the property is considered personalty, and is governed by the law that directs the administration of personal estate (Myers v. Silljacks, 58 Md. 319, 330 (1882)). Each time the ground leasehold interest is passed to someone else, the administrative tasks increase in the form of paperwork, and sometimes through consultations with lawyers or through court appearances. For this reason, ground rent leases sometimes become more burdensome than beneficial for the new leaseholders.
When the leasehold interests change hands, the new leaseholders occasionally may not seek out the lessees for payment, and when no demands for payment arrive in the mail the homeowners are happy to oblige. However, Maryland law prior to 2007 put the legal burden on the lessees to find their ground leaseholders and make payments.
In recent years, according to articles in The Baltimore Sun during 2006 and 2007, several real estate firms and private entities have purchased thousands of inactive ground rents and tracked down the lessees for payment. As a result, some homeowners have been surprised to learn that their long-inactive ground leases are once again active and that in some cases they are considered delinquent in payment even though they had not been notified by their ground leaseholder of the renewal of their debt.
Before Summer 2007, leasehold entities were entitled to sue the homeowners for all back ground rent, charge interest on the debt, and bill the lessees for the legal and procedural costs associated with finding what are often new names, new addresses, and other pertinent billing information. Sometimes, the homeowner is unable to pay such debts in the short time required, in which case the leaseholder in entitled to pursue a judicially-ordered ejectment from the home.
According to Maryland law at the time, a successful ejectment also meant that the leaseholder seized ownership of the home and all associated equity. Potentially, a lessee who defaulted in ground rent payment risked losing the home to the leaseholder, who could then sell the home at market value for a price significantly higher than the original ground rent fees.
Thousands of cases have flooded the Maryland civil court system during these past few decades, especially following a poignant and thorough investigative series in the Baltimore Sun in December of 2006 titled “On Shaky Ground.” The often-ignored ground rent system gained notoriety for the long-standing provisions in Maryland law that allowed enterprising investors to evict Baltimore homeowners, then seize and sell their homes over simple nonpayment of ground rent. Sun investigations had turned up a particular case in which a family was forced to settle with the ground leaseholder to the tune of $18,000 or risk losing their home. Their back rent debt had amounted to all of $24 (Ground Rent case settled – for $18,000 The Sun 12/21/06).
The public response that followed The Sun’s ground rent series forced the Maryland General Assembly to make ground rent a legislative priority.
Ground Rent Legislation Controversy
On behalf of a coalition of displeased ground rent owners, attorney and ground rent trustee Charles Muskin filed a suit challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s new laws prohibiting new ground rents and forcing ground leaseholders to comply with the State’s registry requirements.
Muskin contended that the new legislation infringed on his rights as a property owner to seek appropriate remedy for delinquent renters. He also claimed that the State’s mandates that he register his ground lease and pay the required administrative fees to the Department of Assessments and Taxation violated his rights under Maryland’s constitution.
On October 25, 2011, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its decision . In the case, Charles Muskin v. State Department of Assessments and Taxation (No. 140 of September Term), the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Mr. Muskin, ruling that allowing tenants to extinguish unregistered ground rents is an unconstitional taking.
In addition to the Muskin case, another group of ground rent holders filed a lawsuit against the state in November 2007 over a different provision of the 2007 law, which prohibited ejectments for residential ground leases on properties of four units or less, and established a lien-and-foreclosure process when tenants owe at least six months’ rent. On February 26, 2014, the Maryland Court of Appeals issued its decision . In the case of State of Maryland v. Stanley Goldberg (No. 8, September Term, 2013), the Court ruled in favor of the ground rent holders, holding that “the ground leaseholder’s right of reentry must be viewed as an inextricable part of the bundle of vested rights which the Legislature may not abolish retrospectively.” In effect ground rent holders cannot be forced to file foreclosure actions in order to enforce their rights against the people living on the property.
_____________________________________________
Here we see this same GROUND/LAND RENT scheme in UK--------the REAL 99% OF WE THE PEOPLE as property/land owners is-----ending designation of US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES ----stop MOVING FORWARD global corporate campuses being allowed to use EMINENT DOMAIN to seize individual property owners' land.
Our rights to property as we discussed a few weeks ago lie in COMMON LAW/US CONSTITUTIONAL BILL OF RIGHTS----when a state does not enforce FEDERAL LAWS----those state constitutions having these few decades some power outside of US CITIES DEEMED FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---now have NO POWER when a state is designated SANCTUARY STATE meaning the entire state is now deemed a US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONE.
NO US CONSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS----NO STATE PROPERTY RIGHTS WHEN DESIGNATION OF US FOREIGN ECONOMIC/SANCTUARY ZONE EXISTS.
No one or no NGO is fighting against GROUND/LAND RENTS is they are not shouting and educating against US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES/SANCTUARY CITY/STATES.
A governor pretending to be tough on immigration policy are MOVING FORWARD these same policies using different terms.
Beware the Rentcharge "Scam" - and it's perfectly legal
- Posted8 February 2017
- AuthorPaul Hajek
The arcane world of Rentcharges has moved on significantly – and not in a good way.
We have updated this post a few times since my appearance on Radio 4’s “You and Yours” a couple of years ago to discuss Rentcharges.
At the beginning of last year, we were able to confirm what we thought was the end to a particularly vindictive abuse of process in how arrears were recovered.
Annoyingly, on appeal, the law has been returned to its previous anachronistic form.
If you are the owner of a property with a Rentcharge (or Chief Rent depending on which area you live) you need to read on to avoid your being an unwitting part of a particularly nasty Conveyancing Nightmare.
More on that later, but first some background.
What is a Rentcharge?
Rentcharges (technically Rentscharge but let’s not be too pedantic, we’re friends after all) originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land.
Landowners would sell land to Developers at a reduced capital sum or for no money at all in return for an income from the owners of the new houses and their subsequent owners.
The person entitled to the Rentcharge is known as the Rentowner.
Rentcharges normally range between £2 and £10 per annum with the most expensive at around £12.60.
Rentcharges originated in the early part of the last century and were a means for builders to develop land without paying a premium to the owner of the Land
Rentcharges in Bristol, Chief Rents in Manchester
A Rentcharge is a peculiarity of Conveyancing in Bristol and surrounding towns and villages. They can also crop up in other areas of England such as Bath and Sunderland.
In Manchester such payments are known as Chief Rents.
Estate Agents, in our neck of the woods, often use the term “freehold and free” in their property particulars and brochures. In this context “freehold and free” refers to a freehold house which is not subject to the payment of a Rentcharge.
Rentcharge Sell By Date 2037
The 1977 Rentcharges Act abolished the creation of all new Rentcharges, subject to a few exceptions, for example, small developments with shared facilities such as a pumping station or shared accessways.
The shelf-life for existing Rentcharges was capped at 60 years so that all relevant Rentcharges would expire in 2037.
The 1977 Act, for those who could not wait that long, by design or choice, permitted existing freehold owners, to buy out (or redeem as it is technically known) the Rentcharges attached to their property.
A Rentcharge should not be confused with a Ground Rent which only relates to Leasehold properties, especially, although not exclusively, to flats. You do not have an automatic right to buy your Ground Rent.
How Much Does It Cost To Redeem a Rentcharge?
If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.
The cost of redeeming the Rentcharge will be about 16 times the yearly payment.
We had an enquiry from a client who had received a letter from an Estate Agent acting for a Rentowner and was asked would he like to purchase the Rentcharge for £750
We were asked whether £750 was a good deal or not.
The Rentcharge in question amounted to £2.64 per annum.
The cost to redeem under the 1977 Rentcharge Act would be about 16 times the yearly payment, approximately, £43.
We said it was not a good deal and advised him to contact the Department for Communities and Local Government
If you know the identity of the Rentowner you can apply to the Department for Communities and Local Government to redeem the Rentcharge.
The address to write to or download the application form online is:
Rentcharges Unit:
Department for Communities and Local Government, Ground Floor, Rosebrae Court, Woodside Ferry Approach, Birkenhead, Merseyside, CH41 6DU.
Are There Any Problems with Rentcharges When Selling Your Property
Inflation has eroded any financial advantage for Rentowners.
Many homeowners have been paying the yearly rentcharge although many may have forgotten to pay, not been asked to pay or not known who to pay.
As Conveyancing Solicitors, we often have to deal with problems where there is no evidence of payment of the Rentcharge on the sale of a property.
Conveyancing Solicitors in Bristol normally agree on an apportionment from the sale price of 6 years (the limitation period for a debt) Rentcharge payments roughly between £15 and £75.
No big deal then?
The Rentcharge “Scam”?
Many conveyancing deeds which include a rentcharge state that such rent will be payable annually “whether formally demanded or not”.
Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners.
Rentowners, including a growing number of Investment Companies, have used non-payment as a trigger to impose draconian penalties on unsuspecting homeowners
Here is what happened to one of our conveyancing clients in Bristol.
The Facts:
Our client owned a house in Bristol subject to a Rentcharge. He received a Rentcharge demand purporting to be from the new Rentowner.
Our client had been paying his Rentcharge annually ever since he bought the property to another person. Naturally, he asked for proof of ownership before paying to someone else. Proof, he was told, would only be provided if a £60 administration fee was paid. Not, unsurprisingly, he refused.
But, here’s the rub: the company went ahead with imposing a Statutory Lease on the property rather than pursuing its debt through the Courts.
The company used the little-known Section 121 (4) of the Law of Property Act 1925 ( the LPA) to create a Lease as security for payment of its Rentcharge.
The sum total of the Rentcharge debt that the company, Morgoed Estates Limited (Morgoed), could have legitimately claimed through the Courts was only £16.50
Morgoed used the LPA to create a Lease on his property as security for debt of the £16.50 unpaid Rentcharge.
When our client discovered a Lease had been created on his property, he offered the £16.50 offered in full payment of the outstanding debt.
The company refused this offer.
A Sledgehammer Lease to Crack a Rentcharge Nut
What Morgoed did was perfectly legal, but hardly proportionate.
In 1925 the annual sums payable as Rentcharges were not insignificant.
The ability to create a Lease therefore as security for payment would not have been that controversial.
Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners.
But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.
Fast forward to the present day and inflation has eroded any financial impact for Rentowners. But the power to impose a Statutory Lease remains from the 1925 Act and was not abolished by the 1977 Act.
The 1925 Act also permits the Rentowner to claim its fees for creating the Lease and a payment for the removal of the Lease as well.
Unfortunately, there is no requirement in the Act for the fees charged to be reasonable.
The fees could easily run into thousands of pounds if the Rentowner so chooses.
Our client took Morgoed to Court to remove the Lease from the title to his property.
And, he at least, had his day in Court.
A Short-Lived Victory
The Court was having none of it and decided in favour of our client.
The Court decided that
“The lease …is not registrable at HM Land Registry as a lease because it is a mortgage (within sections 3(5) and 4 (5) of the Land Registration Act 2002) and can only be protected on the register by a notice.”
The company could not ask for any additional monies over and above the outstanding Rentcharge debt.
The judge did not temper his opinion when he stated:
By the Applicants (Morgoed) unreasonable conduct in these proceedings and in persisting in charging unreasonable sums as a condition for redeeming the Rentcharge I see no reason why the standard order for costs (against Morgoed) should not follow the failure of the application.”
Morgoed’s ruse of creating a Lease had been rumbled.
The Land Registry removed the restriction on our clients title and he was able to sell his property without the Statutory Lease.
But, unfortunately, for other homeowners that changed once again on an Appeal in July 2016.
The Appeal Decision
Viewers look away now, as they say on TV, as you may find scenes of an unpleasant nature.
The Court reversed the earlier decision and held that:
“It is clear from s 121 of the LPA that the right to grant a lease arises once there is 40 days of arrears, provided that the rentcharge remains in existence and even if payment was not demanded.
That right is unaffected even if the Appellants have provided no information about their entitlement to the rentcharge, even if they have sent demands to the wrong address, and even if they have refused arrears after the grant of the lease.”
It is difficult to see how the appeal could have gone any better for Morgoed. You can read the full decision here.
The judge although recognizing how the result was not appropriate said that Parliament should have reformed the remedies available in the 1977 Act and abolished the right to the Statutory Lease.
To be fair to the lawmakers, such abuses were not prevalent, if at all, at the time.
8 Tips To Avoid the Rentcharge “Scam” Happening To You
The Rentcharge “scam” is very real one and legal!
There are a few things you can do to minimize your risk of being caught in the “scam”
1. First, check your deeds to see if your property could be subject to a Rentcharge. If you are unsure check with your Conveyancing Solicitor or the Land Registry.
2. Make sure you pay your Rentcharge on time whether demanded or not and ask for a receipt.
3. Set up a Standing Order if possible to avoid overlooking payment of the Rentcharge.
4. If you were paying a Rentcharge but it has not been demanded check with your neighbours to see if they have any information.
5. If you receive a new demand for a Rentcharge ask for documentary proof from the purported new Rentowner and ensure your request by mail is “Signed for”
6. Be prepared to pay an Administration fee for proof (however unpalatable) to avoid paying hundreds of pounds later if a Statutory Lease is registered against your property.
7. If your Rentowner is Morgoed or other “investment companies” make sure you never miss a payment not even when you were not prompted to pay. Companies like Morgoed exist to make money out of unsuspecting homeowners with Rentcharge liabilities from dubious administration fees and/or payment defaults.
8. Best of all, redeem your Rentcharge through the Department for Communities and Local Government as it will save potential hassle and additional cost later on when you sell your house.
Don’t fall into the Rentcharge Trap and turn the non-payment of a few pounds into a Conveyancing Nightmare.
__________________________________________
We want our US 99% WE THE PEOPLE black, white, and brown citizens as well as our new to US immigrants to understand how global banking 1% CLINTON/BUSH/OBAMA use terms differently all having the same goals.
MARYLAND has political machines PRETENDING to be 'left' social progressive DEMOCRATS----while our neighbor VIRGINIA PRETENDS to be more conservative with lots of connections to US MILITARY-----so, OPPORTUNITY ZONES-----as below are the same as US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES and any US 99% WE THE LANDOWNERS will soon be pushed off as these global corporate campus footprints are installed.
'Governor Northam announces nomination of Opportunity Zones in ...
chesterfieldbusinessnews.com/…/governor-northam-announces-…/
Apr 24, 2018 ... Four of the nominated Opportunity Zones are located in Chesterfield ... to spur vitality in economic growth in communities across Virginia and ...'
So, does VIRGINIA have Sanctuary CITIES ----well yes, they are called SPECIAL ECONOMIC ZONES-----being US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES---as this article states having included Alexandria and Richmond------
NONE of the policy goals tied to SANCTUARY CITY/STATES have goals of protecting our 99% new to US immigrants---it simply allows global banking 1% OLD WORLD KINGS AND QUEENS to build POPULATION DENSITY of global labor pool for MOVING FORWARD GLOBAL FACTORIES.
THESE VIRGINIA POLICIES MEAN OUR VIRGINIA 99% OF WE THE LANDOWNERS WILL SOON BE PUSHED OFF.
A governor pretending to be tough on immigration policy are MOVING FORWARD these same policies using different terms.
We already KNOW this 'buying' of land for this new industrial site will be presented as EMINENT DOMAIN by individual small business and home owners trying to keep title to that LAND.
Does Virginia Have Sanctuary Cities?
Home > Issues > Welcoming All > Does Virginia Have Sanctuary Cities?
What is a Sanctuary City?
There is no agreed upon definition, though in general terms ‘Sanctuary Cities’ do not share residents’ information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). As this is a self-designated term, “Sanctuary” has been used to describe localities that issue statements of welcome and localities that do not comply with ICE requests.
Does Virginia have Sanctuary Cities?
No. Virginia has cities such as Richmond and Alexandria that have declared themselves to be “inclusive.” However, there are no localities in Virginia that are “sanctuaries.” Virginia cannot have Sanctuary Cities because the Commonwealth is bound by the Dillon Rule, which means that no locality can have a law that violates state law. In Virginia, everyone who is processed through the criminal justice system has their fingerprints sent to the Department of Homeland Security. Because of this automatic information sharing, no locality can be a “Sanctuary.”
Do Sanctuary Cities protect gang members from prosecution?
No. Sanctuary Cities do not shield people committing crimes. People who commit crimes still face the same charges, same sentences and punishments. In fact, crimes are more likely to be reported and witnesses are more likely to cooperate with law enforcement in Sanctuary localities.
What is the purpose of a Sanctuary city?
Declining to share residents’ information with ICE allows undocumented individuals and their families to interact with law enforcement without fear of deportation. Victims are more likely to report crimes. Drivers in fender benders are more likely to remain at the scene. People in need are more likely to seek the resources available for their families. Witnesses are more likely to come forward.
In fact, Sanctuary Cities have seen a reduction in crime and an increase in reporting of crimes. They keep our neighborhoods safer for all residents. But remember — Virginia cannot have Sanctuary Cities. For now, the whole conversation is a red herring.
_____________________________________________
WE CAN'T FIND COMMON GROUND SO WE AGREE TO BURN IT DOWN!
Here is our global banking 1% freemason STARS creating FADS tied to what COMMON GROUND means in US. COMMON GROUND is found in COMMON LAW tied to our US CONSTITUTION BILL OF RIGHTS.
Global banking 5% freemason/Greek players are all pretending they can simply amend state constitutions to protect US 99% WE THE LANDOWNERS and our new to US immigrant citizens buying HOMES inside US FOREIGN ECONOMIC ZONES.
youtube.com
Our Last Night - "Common Ground" (OFFICIAL)
Purchase "Common Ground" Here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/album/you... Stream on…
RSS Feed
