DoD to build Marines' housing on GALC land

by Lannie Walker from KUAM.com

Guam - It seems the Tiyan landowners who are in line to receive the Federal Aviation Administration property in South Finegayan are having not only to deal with a lawsuit filed by other original landowners, but there's no telling what challenges may lay ahead now that Uncle Sam wants the same piece of land.

Landowner Benny Crawford told KUAM News, "We at one time thought wow we are going get dirt we are going to build our ranch and do what we need to do and life goes on, but now with that military buildup, that's not going to happen. However, we realize now that there is a need for these two parcels: the FAA and the Marbo Command."

According to the Record of Decision the Department of Defense plans to use the former FAA property in South Finegayan to build homes for the U.S. Marines and their dependents. Yet this same piece of property is the subject of a lawsuit filed by a number of original landowners who argue that a new public law that deeds the land as well as land at Marbo Command to Tiyan landowners is unfair.

The Tiyan landowners are being given these properties in exchange for the government taking their properties for use by the airport. Crawford has been at the forefront of the battle for compensation, and said, "Originally it wasn't about finances it was about the dirt and now it turned out to be about finances and it might be lucrative for the landowners. And if that would be the case right on more power to the landowners."

But according to the Tiyan land swap law, the Guam Legislature made known that their intention was not for these ancestral lands to be made available to the Department of Defense. So the worst-case scenario, should the military moves forward with the ROD, would be that one of the recourses it might have to pursue is condemnation.

Crawford continued, "However if they are going to condemn the land that doesn't leave the landowner in a good situation because condemnation would be fair market value and leaves us out of the negotiation, how much and how to use land for."

On the other hand, Attorney Curtis Van De Veld, who represents landowners against the Tiyan land exchange law, believes there's billions that could still be made. But it wouldn't be just for Tiyan landowners but all original landowners under the Guam Ancestral Lands Commission. "And it's going to be substantial," he noted. "The estimate is in excess of $2 billion."

Van De Veld still believes the deal with the Guam Economic Development Authority and Jortberg Properties is still valid. The two sides were on the cusp of signing a deal to lease the GALC's FAA property when public law was signed mandating that same piece of land be deeded to Tiyan landowners. GEDA subsequently withdrew the request for proposal.

The attorney explained, "When you make an offer and it is accepted, you create a contract. And there was no termination of the offer prior to the acceptance was my understanding, so I think there is likely to be a binding lease on the property."

While Jortberg Properties has not indicated what it plans to do about the GEDA request for proposal, Van De Veld is still moving forward with his clients case, hoping to strike the Tiyan land swap law so that all landowners will benefit no matter what's done with the land. Van De Veld's request for a temporary restraining order has already been granted by a superior court judge, with additional hearings planned ahead.

"At that point, it will simply be a matter of submitting legal argument to the court and letting the court come up with a full and complete judgment in a short period of time which in the best interest of everyone," said Van de Veld.

Tiyan Access Road May Be Closed by FAA

Tiyan residents infuriated at FAA
Dec 20, 2009
by Mindy Aguon

Guam - Tiyan residents have launched a letter campaign outraged by the Federal Aviation Administration's efforts to completely shut down public access through Tiyan. The airport is currently collaborating with the Guam Department of Public Works, the Federal Highway Administration and the FAA to find a win-win solution.

Dozens of Tiyan landowners put pen to paper, expressing their frustration in letters to Guam International Airport Authority Executive Manager Carlos Salas. The landowners are particularly upset about the FAA's insistence that the public be denied access to the new road. The feds have threatened to cut off federal funds unless the access road is closed.

The FAA also warned that GIAA cannot use airport revenues or property for the Tiyan parkway that is supposed to be built and completed by April 2012. The Tiyan Neighborhood Association contends there is no practical reason or basis to prohibit the public from using the new road, saying it's apparent that the "FAA wants to take the airport back and restrict access to locals as though it was still military property."

The Airport's executive manager couldn't detail what plans are in the works for the stalled Tiyan parkway project, but he confirms officials are in discussions to resolve the matter and make it a win-win for everyone. Said Salas, "We want to help and make sure there's public access as well. Our latest collaboration with Public Works and Federal Highway is that the airport is favorably looking at maybe even providing more land to make that possible."

At this point DPW, the FHA, the FAA, and the airport are working on the road alignment and determine where the parkway would be situated. While the FAA previously indicated that GIAA could not use any of its property for the access road, Salas says the airport may end up giving twenty-four acres of land. "Not a change of heart, but look at the parameters that you have to work within," he continued.

"And the parameters are this, that the airport property is strictly for airport use and there are other properties that are available or could be attainable for purposes of the roadway. So let's work with that and see what the airport can do on a give and take situation."

Salas says while discussions are ongoing, he expects the Tiyan parkway will run along East Sunset Boulevard and eventually connect to Route 8 further from south of its current location. He's hopeful an agreement will be reached before the end of the year or by January.

Rocket Island - Pacific Ocean

Must see video. Link is provided below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXMJVgctizA

October 2009

An American test warhead arcs gracefully through the sky towards Kwajalein Island, a strange but familiar sight here. But now a rift between America and the Marshallese is making the islands future unclear.

A Minuteman III intercontinental missile was fired 28 minutes earlier from a Californian airbase. Fortunately the re-entry vehicles splash down harmlessly in deep water in the Kwajalein Atoll. US Army Lt-Colonel Harold Buhl is pleased. In order for a weapon to be a weapon of deterrence it needs to be proven that in fact it will work. For 63 years the Marshall Islands has played host to American war games but in 2016 Americas lease for 11 of the islands is up. The Marshallese say the US compensation is inadequate and their people are struggling. Dubbed The Slum of the Pacific, 15,000 people are crammed into a narrow strip of coral and sand. We have running water 3 days a week 2,000 kids dont go to school at all., tells Michael Kabua, Ebeye Sentator. Landowners are asking more than they've been offered, and now negotiations have stalled.

Produced by ABC Australia, Distributed by Journeyman Pictures

Lawmakers split on group's push for Article 12 repeal in 2011

Wednesday, October 07, 2009

Lawmakers split on group's push for Article 12 repeal in 2011

By Haidee V. Eugenio
Reporter

Lawmakers are split on whether to support a repeal of Article 12 and members who support such move are further split on how to go about it-through a legislative initiative, popular initiative, or constitutional convention.

The Citizens for Change of Article 12 Inc. or CCA12, a non-profit group, delivered a presentation on Article 12 of the CNMI Constitution yesterday morning in the House chamber on Capital Hill for members of the House of Representatives and Senate.

Only 15 of the 29 lawmakers showed up, and not all of them stayed throughout the presentation.

Most of them, however, agree with CCA12 that discussion of Article 12 is paramount.

CCA12 volunteer members and officers Atty. Vince Seman, David Sablan, Alex Sablan, and Rose White took turns explaining the adverse impact of Article 12 on families, businesses, the economy, and the CNMI in general.

Article 12 stipulates that only persons of Northern Marianas descent may buy or own land in the CNMI.

“Let's do away with Article 12. Why prolong the agony? Why do we and our children need to continue to suffer from Article 12? You are the lawmakers. You can put the initiative (to repeal Article 12) on the ballot in 2011,” CCA12's David Sablan said.

Rep. Rosemond Santos (R-Saipan), along with Senate Pres. Pete P. Reyes (R-Saipan) and Rep. Tina Sablan (Ind-Saipan), asked CCA12 for statistics on the number of families and businesses adversely impacted by the land alienation provision of the Constitution.

They also asked whether CCA12 has drafted a legislative initiative or a popular initiative to repeal Article 12.

“I'm not questioning the motive behind the repeal. But convince us with statistics that there are families and businesses on island affected by Article 12,” said Reyes.

Seman said the group will be compiling such statistics or list, and is now working on a draft initiative.

Rep. Diego T. Benavente (R-Saipan) said the inability of CNMI children and families to own the land that's been passed on to them by their family members is proof itself that Article 12 is affecting the community.

Benavente, in an interview after the CCA12 presentation, said it is up to the voters to decide whether to repeal Article 12.

“At this point, there's enough argument and reason to consider this. I support presenting this to the people who will need to decide about it,” he said.

Santos, when interviewed, said she'd rather support a constitutional convention over legislative initiative or popular initiative.

During discussion, House Speaker Arnold I. Palacios (R-Saipan) said it's not for the Legislature to decide whether to repeal Article 12, adding that this will be best dealt with through popular initiative.

Rep. Tina Sablan said she would support a legislative initiative and the Legislature should not decline to act on such an important issue.

“In the end, the Article 12 question will of course be decided by the people. But I see no reason why the Legislature should simply leave it to the people just to get the question on the ballot at all. The CNMI Constitution both establishes Article XII and also empowers the Legislature to propose changes to the constitution through legislative initiative,” she said.

She said she would encourage citizen groups to go ahead and launch a popular initiative in order to encourage the next Legislature to act, and to be prepared in the event that the Legislature fails to act.

“And if passing a legislative initiative on Article XII is important to the citizens of the CNMI, then now would be the time to start asking legislative candidates whether or not they would support such a legislative initiative, and how they would frame the Article XII question if elected,” she added.

Rep. Stanley Torres (R-Saipan), for his part, said he'd support a legislative initiative.

In separate interviews, Rep. Ramon A. Tebuteb (R-Saipan) and Rep. Ralph Torres (R-Saipan) said they'd choose popular initiative to repeal Article 12.

Process

Any constitutional amendment may be proposed by a constitutional convention of elected delegates, a popular initiative, or a legislative initiative.

The question of whether to hold a constitutional convention must be submitted to voters no later than 10 years after the question was last submitted.

An amendment proposed by constitutional convention is ratified if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast and at least two-thirds of the votes cast in two of three existing senatorial districts.

An amendment proposed by popular initiative is submitted to voters if petitions proposing the amendment are signed by at least 50 percent of the persons qualified to vote in the CNMI and at least 25 percent of the persons qualified to vote in each senatorial district.

Like an amendment proposed by constitutional convention, an amendment proposed by popular initiative is ratified if it is approved by a majority of the votes cast and at least two-thirds of the votes cast in two of three existing senatorial districts.

An amendment proposed by legislative initiative is submitted to voters if the legislative act proposing the amendment is approved by at least three-fourths of the members of each house of the Legislature present and voting.

In contrast to amendments proposed by constitutional convention or popular initiative, an amendment proposed by legislative initiative is ratified if it is approved simply by a majority of the votes cast.

CCA12, which has been stimulating anew the discussions on the importance of abolishing Article 12, says doing away with the land alienation provision is not the end of the Chamorro and Carolinian cultures, which they say those opposed to the idea want the public to believe.

The group said persons originally designated as Northern Marianas Descent (NMD) were not exclusively Chamorros and Carolinians.

Others who oppose a repeal of Article 12 said if those who believe the CNMI Constitution's land alienation clause is discriminatory, then they must also believe that the Covenant agreement is discriminatory.

Section 805 of the Covenant allows the CNMI to revisit its land alienation restrictions 25 years after the termination of the Trusteeship Agreement in 1986. That 25-year period will end in 2011.

CCA12 has been citing examples of inequality brought by Article 12. For example, a Chinese or Korean baby adopted by a Chamorro parent is considered 100 percent NMD and therefore can own land even though the baby does not have a Chamorro blood.

On the other hand, according to the group, the child of a Chamorro who marries someone from the United States mainland or from Asia is considered only 50 percent NMD despite having at least one biological parent who is a Chamorro.

When the child with Chamorro blood marries a non-NMD and bears a child, that child is considered only 25 percent NMD. That child's child, even if he has a Chamorro blood, could no longer own the land that would be passed down to him by her parents, grandparents or great grand parents.

CCA12 also said that Article 12 forces people to marry only NMDs just so they can continue to own land.

The group is open to discuss Article 12 with anyone interested, including schools, business groups, non-profit groups and government agencies.