Search

Prepared as part of the program of the Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development under Title V of the Rural Development Act of 1972, this compendium cites 194 state laws related to public control of privately owned land outside developed urban areas in 12 Northeastern States. Arranged alphabetically and ordered chronologically, this compendium is comprised of a state-by-state listing of principal land-use laws as passed through the 1975 legislative sessions in: Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and West Virginia. Information given on each act cited includes the following: (1) title, (2) date enacted, (3) date of amendment (if any), (4) the agency or agencies charged with administering the act, and (5) a summary of the Act's major provisions. Presented via chart, a classification system is provided for this compendium to aid in identification of laws relative to specific topics and in comparison with similar statutes in different states. The four major categories of the compendium classification system are identified as: (1) policy power; (2) use of public agencies; (3) use of tax manipulation; and (4) public acquisition of open space land. (JC)

Congressional hearings concerning H.R. 7557 and H.R. 7757, which pertain to grants to 1890 land-grant colleges, are presented. H.R. 7557 provides for grants to the states for the purposes of assisting eligible colleges, including Tuskegee Institute, to receive funds under the act of August 30, 1890, in the purchase of equipment and land and the planning, construction, alteration, or renovation of buildings to strengthen their capacity for food and agriculture research. H.R. 7557 would make grants based on facility needs data supplied by the affected institutions several years ago, while H.R. 7757 would follow traditional formula funding procedures already set forth for research and extension grants for the 1890 institutions and Tuskegee in Title XIV of the 1977 farm bill. The enactment of H.R. 7557 is recommended in the fiscal year 1981 budget. It is hoped that the bills will not only provide modern facilities for federally-supported research but will stimulate the infusion of state funds into the agricultural research activities of these predominantly minority institutions to permit their full participation in well coordinated agricultural research in their states and regions. The text of each bill is included. (SW)

Maintaining that a Federal policy re: unresolved American Indian claims is a necessary element for an overall Federal policy toward Indian affairs, this statement by the Assistant Chief of the Indian Claims Section/Land and Natural Resources Division argues against enactment of: H.R. 2664 (a bill "to amend the Indian Claims Commission Act of August 13, 1946, and for other purposes") and H.R. 3377 (a bill "to authorize the Wichita Indian Tribe of Oklahoma, and its affiliated bands and groups of Indians, to file with the Indian Claims Commission any of their claims against the United States for lands taken without adequate compensation, and for other purposes"). Specifically, this statement contends "H.R. 2664, as written, would be an amendment to Section 20 of the Indian Claims Commission Act. The amendment provides private relief to the Sioux only", while all sections of the Act as originally enacted and as amended provide for the claims of all tribes equally. This statement recommends, therefore, that action on H.R. 2664 be deferred until the administration can complete a general study of ancient Indian claims and that if this recommendation is not accepted, the bill be modified as specified in this statement. Recommending deferment or specific modifications of H.R. 3377, this statement maintains that waiver of res judicata and collateral estoppel in all Indian claims would be so far reaching that Congress would want to establish this precedent only after most careful consideration. (JC)

This chapter summarizes recent state supreme court and federal court decisions involving school property. The cases discussed are generally limited to those decided during 1975 and reported in the General Digest as of March 1976. In their discussion, the authors attempt to integrate related cases and to illuminate any unifying legal principles that underlie the decisions relevant to each specific subtopic of school property. Separate sections of the article focus in turn on cases involving school board authority over school property matters, attachment and detachment of portions of school districts, ownership of school property, acquisition of school property, authority to locate and construct school buildings, voting on school property issues, contracts and bids for building construction, use of school property, school closures, and disposition of school property. (JG)

This chapter summarizes and analyzes all state supreme court and federal court decisions as well as other significant court decisions affecting the realm of higher education. The cases discussed are generally limited to those decided during 1974 and reported in the General Digest on or before March 1, 1975. In this discussion, the author attempts to integrate related cases and to illuminate any unifying legal principles that underlie the decisions relevant to each specific subtopic of higher education. Separate sections of the article focus in turn on cases involving organization and administration, property and buildings, finance, liability, aid to private education, faculty, student rights and responsibilities, and racial and sex discrimination. (JG)

This chapter summarizes and analyze all state supreme court and federal court decisions as well as other significant court decisions involving school property. The cases discussed are generally limited to those decided during 1974 and reported in the General Digest on or before March 1, 1975. In their discussion, the authors attempt to integrate related cases and to illuminate any unifying legal principles that underlie the decisions relevant to each specific subtopic of school property. Separate sections of the article focus in turn on cases involving school board authority over school property matters, ownership of school property, acquisition of school property, authority to locate and construct buildings, voting on school construction issues, zoning ordinances, contracts and bids for building construction, surety bonds, use of school property, and disposition of school property. (JG)

This report from the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources recommends the passage of Senate bill S. 917, as amended by the committee, to provide for the conveyance of certain lands adjacent to the Gund Ranch, Grass Valley, Nevada to the University of Nevada. Information provided includes: a summary of the provisions and committee amendment, legislative history of the bill, committee recommendation, cost and budgetary considerations, regulatory impact of evaluation, and the report of the Department of Interior pertaining to S. 917. (SPG)

While the types of cases reported in this year's chapter are essentially the same as those reported in last year's, the number of certain types of cases have changed--in some instances significantly. For example, the number of cases raising constitutional issues in the areas of school construction, location, and property use have declined. On the other hand, there has been a significant increase in the number of cases involving challenges to the outcome of school bond referenda. In Texas, Connecticut, New Jersey, New Mexico, Tennessee, and Iowa, taxpayers, failing to defeat school bond referenda at the polls, have tried to reverse the outcome in the courts. Unless there is evidence of willful misconduct or fraud, however, the courts are still reluctant to overturn the results of elections. But, in a few cases involving property attachment and detachment and school closures, the courts are not at all reluctant to reverse school board decisions, particularly those in which the board appeared to place cost considerations above the general welfare and educational opportunities of the students. (Author/IRT)

Several court cases involving acquisition, use, and disposal of property by institutions of higher education are briefly summarized in this chapter. Cases discussed touch on such topics as municipal annexation of university property; repurchase of properties temporarily allocated to faculty members; implications of zoning laws and zoning board decisions for the sale or development of property; the need for filing environmental impact statements before construction; and problems encountered in relation to building construction contracts. (PGD)

Presenting testimony on a joint resolution to extinguish any Mashpee Wampanoag right, title, or interest to certain lands in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, these hearings include Senate Joint Resolution 86, the proposed bill, and statements by seven representative spokesmen. This action, as represented here, is premised on recognition that severe economic hardship for the residents of the town of Mashpee has resulted from the cloud on their titles following the initiation of a lawsuit by the plaintiff Mashpee Wampanoag Indian Tribe, since pursuant to the Indian Nonintercourse Act (the basis for this lawsuit) only an act of Congress can effect a clearing of title. The proposed bill presented in this document attempts to resolve the title problem by affecting an extinguishment by the United States to any right, title, or interest the plaintiff may have to the lands in question; however, it is noted that existing law now provides that should the plaintiff tribe prove a right to title, extinguishment by the United States would give rise to a claim against the United States for fair compensation under the fifth amendment of the Constitution. This document includes testimony presented by: a selectman from the town of Mashpee; a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts; the Counsel for the town of Mashpee; the President of the Mashpee Indian Tribal Counsel; and the Counsel for the Mashpee Indians. (JC)