November 15, 2015
Livestock Market Digest
Page 7
Homeowners in Ohio Town Had Their Front Yards Seized MAGGIE THURBER, DAILYSIGNAL.COM
F
ort Meigs Road in Perrysburg, Ohio, is too narrow and needs widening, as almost all would agree. But homeowners along the road don’t agree with how it should be widened, nor do they agree with the “quick take” eminent domain process the city used to claim people’s front yards. What these residents find even harder to stomach is the fact that their homes aren’t even in Perrysburg, but rather in Middleton Township. Ohio law defines the process in eminent domain cases, which mirrors a traditional civil court case with a jury decision. But if the public project is “making or repairing” a road, the government can take possession of the disputed property immediately upon filing for eminent domain—even before the case undergoes the normal court process—through a quick-take. But the Fort Meigs plan also calls for an extra-wide multi-use path or sidewalk, which isn’t covered under the quick-take process, homeowners say. “The Ohio constitution says local government can use ‘quicktake’ to make or repair roads,” said Maurice Thompson, attorney for the homeowners. “The scope of this project is definitely beyond that.” Thompson, executive director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law, said the land
grab has two major problems. First, Perrysburg lacks authority to seize property in Middleton Township. But even if it did have authority, because it’s a road project, it can’t take land for sidewalks. Further, Perrysburg has no authority to use the quick-take process in Middleton Township, and, regardless, quick-take doesn’t apply to sidewalks—either inside or outside the city limits. “They can’t take land in the township for any reason,” Thompson said, “but particularly for amenities like a sidewalk and bike path,” citing several court cases in which quick-takes for drainage ditches and sewer lines were ruled illegal. Recently the court granted a temporary order saying the city couldn’t take immediate possession of the properties or begin construction until certain other issues are determined. But the land grab isn’t the only issue. Homeowners wonder why the widening project is limited to their side of the street; the other side contains a man-made drainage ditch and farmland. Todd Grayson, the lone Perrysburg City Council member to vote against the eminent domain proceedings, said it boils down to cost. “There’s no debate about whether or not the road needs to be widened,” he said. “The question is: Do you pay a million dollars more to expand on the ditch/farm field side, or do you go to the property owners’ side
and expand on their property?” The estimated project cost is $2.4 million, but it increases to around $3.4 million if the ditch side is widened. “If you go the ditch side, you have to move the ditch, and that involves the Corps of Engineers and Ohio EPA,” Grayson said. “But instead of moving the ditch, we’re going to be hacking up the front yards, moving traffic closer to the front door, and tearing down the old trees” on the homeowner side. “If it were exactly the same dollar amount to move that ditch, we’d be doing it,” Grayson said. “We know across the street makes more sense for everybody, but that million-dollar price tag is too much for some,” he added. “We know what the right thing to do is. The city and (the Ohio Department of Transportation) are just choosing not to do it. “And I disagree,” Grayson said. “When your justification is ‘it’s cheaper,’ that’s not a legal reason for taking people’s property.” ODOT’s only role, says Mike Gramza, ODOT District 2 administrator, is to make sure all federal requirements are followed; 80 percent of the funding is from the federal government. Perrysburg is handling all design work and paying the 20 percent local match. Grayson said moving the ditch makes sense now and in the future. “It wouldn’t shock me at all
if in 20 years there are houses across the street and we’ll have to take part of their front yard in order to further widen the street,” he said. “So why not do it now, when there are no houses in play and it’s a just a ditch and a cornfield?” “The point is, this is doable,” Grayson said. “But we’re choosing not to do it because of money, the OEPA, and the Corps of Engineers. Which begs the question: Why do we need the EPA involved in moving a man-made run-off ditch 15 feet? We’re going to start with a ditch and end with a ditch. I can understand if you’re impacting a natural stream, but this is a man-made drainage ditch on a cornfield in Ohio.” He said Matthew Beredo, the city attorney when the project began, downplayed the potential legal opposition from homeowners, calling eminent domain a “slam dunk” that wouldn’t cost much to defend. Those costs weren’t factored into the financial comparison. But Beredo resigned in April, and Karlene Henderson, the new city attorney, has yet to update the council on the case. Grayson hopes the wrangling over eminent domain authority will delay the project long enough for the new council to take office in January. “Maybe we’ll have the time to find out that it’s worth a little extra money to move the expansion to the other side of the road,” he said. Originally published in Watchdog.org.
Veterinary Feed Directive Raises Concerns for Cattle Raisers BY: TY KEELING, VICE CHAIR, TSCRA ANIMAL HEALTH COMMITTEE
I
n 1996, the Animal Drug Availability Act (ADAA) was signed into law to provide flexibility for the way the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates animal drugs and medicated feeds. This was enacted to increase the number of approved animal drugs on the market, and it created a new category of drugs used in animal feed referred to as veterinary feed directive drugs (VFD drugs). Under the 1996 ADAA, VFD drugs did not require a prescription from a licensed veterinarian for use. However, this recently changed on Oct. 1, 2015 when the FDA implemented a new rule that expands and further regulates the use of what they refer to as drugs that are “medically important” feed grade antibiotics. This rule immediately takes effect for three VFD drugs: Avilamycin, Florfenicol and Tilmicosin. Only Tilmicosin is used as a feed-grade drug in cattle. By Jan. 1, 2017, the list of VFD drugs will expand to include all medically important antibiotics used in feed and water for disease prevention, control and treatment. The Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association (TS-
CRA) believes this is another example of the federal government expanding their authority and attempting to regulate ranchers out of business. They are accomplishing this by requiring producers to receive a VFD form, similar to a prescription, from a licensed veterinarian before they can acquire and use antimicrobial drugs in feed or water. A veterinarian must fill out the VFD form specifying the ranch, group of animals to be treated, drug to be used, feeding rate and the duration of the treatment for the cattle. Additional time and increased costs for cattlemen and women are the only result of these regulations. Further, an unrealistic amount of detailed forms and records must be retained for a minimum of two years by the veterinarian, rancher and feed mill or distributor. This amount of paperwork is unnecessary and arduous just to receive a drug ranchers have used appropriately for years to care for their cattle. The new VFD rule also requires veterinarians to follow what the FDA refers to as state defined veterinarian-client-patient relationships (VCPR). In states where the FDA determines no applicable or appropriate state VCPR requirements exist, veterinarians are required to issue VFDs in compliance with federally defined VCPR
requirements. Texas and Oklahoma already have state VCPR requirements in place; however, the FDA is overlooking the fact that ranchers already have good working relationships with their local veterinarians. The VFD rule is part of FDA’s strategy to promote the judicious use of antimicrobials in food-producing animals. The Administration believes antibiotics are causing resistance in humans who consume beef products; however they have continuously failed to back this claim with proper peer-reviewed sound science. While the rule is not expected to be in full effect until 2017, TSCRA recommends that cattle producers contact their veterinarians to discuss how it could affect them in their daily operations. American ranchers have proved they are the best caretakers of their cattle, and they have continuously provided a safe, healthy and abundant supply of beef worldwide. They have been able to do this by working with their veterinarians and by using antibiotics judiciously to treat sick cattle and maintain healthy herds. The federal government needs to realize that at the end of the day these regulations are actually jeopardizing animal health. TSCRA will continue to work
with industry organizations and government officials to ensure cattle raisers’ access and ability to use important animal drugs to care for their cattle are retained. TSCRA will also keep its members informed as the VFD rule continues being implemented throughout the U.S. Ty Keeling is a Boerne, Texas cattle rancher, and he has been the vice chair of the Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association