[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Immigration See other Immigration Articles Title: Land-grant movement After decades of inaction, fight is gaining traction ( to Mexican heirs ) Momentum is building to transfer federal lands in New Mexico to the heirs of Spanish and Mexican land grants. Descendants of families who received government grants of land before New Mexico was annexed to the United States say that's the only way to correct injustices caused when their ancestors lost control of some of their properties. While the prospect of fencing off forests and streams now open to the public riles many who aren't land-grant heirs, Gov. Bill Richardson and the New Mexico Legislature are urging Congress to transfer lands from the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Bureau of Land Management to land-grant heirs. Spokesmen for U.S. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and other members of the state's congressional delegation say they still haven't decided how to address the long-simmering land-grant situation. But they say they intend to begin focusing on the issue in coming weeks and possibly draft legislation by this summer. Using only cash to resolve the dispute is not a viable political option for land-grant activists who say their culture is tied to the land. "Our No. 1 priority is land," Juan Sanchez, board of trustees president for the Chilili Land Grant southeast of Albuquerque, said recently. "We want the land." A contentious history The issues has roots in New Mexico's Spanish-colonial past, when Spain's royal government granted ownership of land to individuals or to entire communities, which used the land for such activities as grazing and wood gathering. The government of Mexico continued the practice of issuing land grants after the country gained its independence in 1821. Millions of acres were granted by Spain and Mexico to encourage settlement in what is now the American Southwest. Then came war with the United States. Under the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican War, the U.S. government pledged to respect private property in the New Mexico Territory, including land grants. However, heirs to Spanish and Mexican land grants have claimed for decades that the U.S. government failed to live up to its obligations. Last year, the U.S. General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress, released a controversial study that upheld the federal government's procedures for reviewing land-grant claims in territorial days. The GAO concluded the government had afforded land-grant heirs due process in the 1800s and said there is no legal obligation for Congress to do anything to address the land-grant situation. Yet the GAO also concluded the grant-confirmation process was inefficient and created hardship for land-grant heirs. Accordingly, the investigators listed options that Congress could pursue to address the situation if it chose to, ranging from a simple apology to the possibility of cash reparations or actual transfer of federal lands. In 1999, when Domenici got the GAO to undertake the study, he said he expected it could result in millions of acres of federal land being transferred to land-grant heirs. This year, the state Legislature passed a memorial calling on Congress to create a trust fund for land-grant heirs or initiate "a program of land exchanges to allow for recovery of land by the community land grants." Finding answers Despite the GAO's finding of due process, Richardson says, he supports transferring federal land to heirs. "Because even though they may have been given due process, I believe it was a very weak due process," the governor, a former Northern New Mexico congressman, said in a recent interview. "Just because somebody was given due process doesn't mean that they were not victimized." Richardson also said a lot of land-grant families have never been given suitable explanations as to how they lost land. "That's always been my fundamental view as I approach the land-grant issue: Give the land-grant families a reason why their land was taken," he said. "And secondly, the compensation issue has, in my judgment, never been addressed." Since the state Legislature's Land Grant Interim Committee first convened in 2003, lawmakers have passed legislation that Richardson has signed into law recognizing land grants as political subdivisions of the state. That makes land grants eligible for both state and federal money. This past session, the Legislature approved about $700,000 for projects on land grants around the state, including $250,000 that Richardson earmarked from his share of capital-outlay money for economic-development planning. Letter of the law Richardson said he's concerned the federal government has been too legalistic about the land-grant issue. "The federal government would say, 'Give us the deeds; give us the paper,' " Richardson said. "Well, these are very humble families, and in those days, your word was your bond. There weren't computers or water studies, so that was kind of a disingenuous argument." Richardson said it's possible Congress could create a trust fund for land grants and pass legislation to transfer federal land to land grants within the next five to 10 years. The state government and New Mexico's congressional delegation this year "should pursue these in Congress," he said. Noting that he intends to meet soon with congressional representatives concerning the land-grant issue, Richardson said: "There's still plenty of time. The appropriations process hasn't started yet."
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#4. To: robin (#0)
There's a body of law to take care of this. The doctrine of adverse possession. If these people brought an action to correct the situation within the applicable time period, i.e, 5, 10 or sometimes 20 years, then they have a right to prove that the land is really theirs and is being held by an adverse party. If they didn't do this, they should be SOL. Otherwise the argument about who really owns the land goes back to Adam and Eve. You see this everyday with fences and property lines. If somebody builds a fence in good faith and it stands for 90 years, and then a GPS survey determines that it sits on the neighbors land, the fence and property line probably remain where they are. Likewise if a property is transfered in good faith by a party who doesn't really hold fee title, and if the bonafide purchaser then occupies the land for 60 years, an heir to the real owner can't suddenly show up and kick the purchaser off. The doctrine of adverse possession prevents this.
#7. To: crack monkey (#4)
CM, that all sounds very reasonable. I hope reason prevails, but Richardson sounds determined.
Thanks for reminding me of what I should have said - Adverse possession rules, rule...in Texas, obvious and open possession rules kick in after only seven, not sixty years. Check your fence lines, folks.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
[Register]
|
||