You may have been misled by the pompous self-aggrandizing rhetoric of some of the politicians as quoted in that article.
If some people are scared, it's self-inflicted or paranoia, etc. Land that they own outright can't be "taken" or significantly* impaired in value without "just compensation" being paid. That's an actual written part of the 5th Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, which is as important - or more so - than the protection against self-incrimination. It's not a meaningless clause, either - it's invoked often, such as for payment for the 'reversion' rights of railroad rights-of-way when they are used instead for rail-trails.
*In a nutshell, zoning, environmental, historic districts, and other regulations - including this one - are generally not viewed as "takings, either, unless they destroy most or all of the value or usefulness of a property. No one has a right to live or own property completely unencumbered by reasonable rules and regulations for the safety and general welfare of the rest of the citizens - it's essentially a question of "how much is too much".
If they don't own the property outright - i.e., if they lease it from the Federal government, or have some other less-than-permanent arrangement or rights - then they have nothing to complain about. That's exactly what a lease is - it's not permanent or perpetual, and is subject to change, revocation, or cancellation by the landlord (here, Uncle Sam) at each renewal - and they knew (or should have known) that. If they failed to look out for their own interests in those situations, then the responsible persons can been seen in a mirror. If they expected otherwise, that's all they had and have - "mere expectations", which is just about the same validity as hope or wishful thinking, with no legal standing. No sympathy from me for that scenario, either.
- Paul North.
What scares some people is that if you own land out west and if you have a ranch the President can take your land and restrict what you do with it by declaring it a "National Monument".---- That being said the Pullman District in Chicago has needed help for a long time. Why this was not done when Obama was a Senator from that district or sooner is a #%$%&&!
Not to pick on or split words, but from the article - a fairly well-written one, too - my understanding that the Pullman Neighborhood effectively is a National Monument upon designation by the President. Apparently nothing further needs to be done from a legal and administrative perspective - there's not a process that's commenced by a required "proposal" first, then an approval, consent, or concurrence, etc., by Congress. The National Monument status is apparently complete upon its designation by the President.
Except, of course, for putting up a marker or plaque of some kind.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-designate-3-national-monuments-183057405--politics.html
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.