The Turnpike Enabling Act is a SUPPLEMENTAL Statute
But the OTA sure doesn't ACT like it
Recently, the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority (OTA) has insinuated to the public that it is not affected by the new eminent domain bill recently passed through HB3159 and signed into law.
Lisa Shearer-Salim, turnpike authority spokeswoman, said the agency was uncertain whether the law applied to the agency. “OTA is still evaluating this new law,” Shearer-Salim said. “If applicable, we believe it will have little impact on the manner in which the agency acquires property and sells surplus property. OTA does and will follow all applicable statutes.”
Au Contraire Mon Frere.
This law *should* drastically change the way in which the OTA currently sells off its surplus lands at auction to their developer friends. That’s the entire point of the law; not only for the OTA, but ALL state entities.
The law forces state entities with the power of eminent domain to give right-of-first-refusal to the original landowners the lower of the original sale amount or current appraised value. Not sell it at basement prices to their developer friends for future kick-backs.
The OTA has also told homeowners and property owners, with certified letters sent by POE and Associates, that they are allowed on their property for surveying and engineering purposes because of State Statute 69 O.S. Section 1706 C.
But because the Turnpike Enabling Act is SUPPLEMENTAL to our other state laws, they are not being exactly forthright.
The Turnpike Enabling Act (Title or State Statute 69) is SUPPLEMENTAL to all other laws in our Constitution. This is importation to know, because by Title 21, Section 1835A Paragraph 3a, you do NOT have to allow them on your property.
Title 21 takes precedent over Title 69 by Title 69’s own admission that it is “supplemental and additional to powers conferred by other laws.”
What is so hard to understand about that?
The Turnpike Enabling Act has ALWAYS been Supplemental
Way back in 1947, when the idea of using revenue bonds to pay for a toll road to connect two Oklahoma cities was born, the legislators made clear that the Turnpike Enabling Act was “supplemental and additional to powers conferred by other laws.”
The legislators authorized the Turnpike Enabling Act in 1947 and specifically included section 671 that said that
“this Act shall be deemed to provide an additional and alternative method for the doing of the things authorized thereby, and shall be regarded as supplemental and additional to powers conferred by other laws, and shall not be regarded as in derogation of any powers now existing; provided, however, that the issuance of turnpike revenue bonds or turnpike revenue refunding bonds under the provisions of this article need not comply with the requirements of any other law applicable to the issuance of bonds.”
And while we are here, check out Section 672 in the screenshot above that says “provided that until specifically authorized by the Legislature the provisions of this Act shall not be utilized to construct and operate any toll turnpike except between the cities of Oklahoma City and Tulsa.”
Wow.. The GOOD OLD DAYS.
It’s too bad the Legislature got duped with money and lavish lobbying to legislate them 34 additional location authorizations - 17 of which the OTA recently decreed were infeasible and unnecessary.
And one of them, Location Authorization #28, was used (illegally) TWICE to describe two completely different locations - the HE Bailey Spur AND the Southern Extension. Watch this minute-long video and tell me how it is possible that SIX Oklahoma Supreme Court Justices got it wrong.
The six Oklahoma Supreme Court judges who endorsed the OTA-drafted legal opinion, laden with circular logic, bad law and the now defunct Chevron doctrine should have been required to repeatedly watch this video.
If you didn’t know, the Chevron doctrine gave the OTA the ammunition to tell the court to defer to THEM and THEIR INTERPRETATION of the law because THEY KNEW BEST.
So what is the Chevron Doctrine?
“The Chevron doctrine was a legal fiction created entirely by the SCOTUS in it’s ruling in 1984 on Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). The Chevron case was related to a question of statutory interpretation and the Court decided that when a statute is ambiguous a court should defer to an agency’s interpretation of that law. This was a clear abdication of the duties of the court as laid out in the Constitution and APA (Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706) in my opinion and has lead to administrative agencies being able to do anything they want without any opportunity for people to challenge the legality of their actions.” ~ Tom Renz
Judge Winchester (Oklahoma State Supreme Court Justice) used this Chevron doctrine outloud several times to justify his opinion on why the OTA should be allowed to build the turnpikes.
Well, actually the OTA said it outload several times and Judge Winchester just added his signature and convinced five of his buddies to do the same.
“The Court has consistently honored the discretion given to the OTA by the Legislature and allowed the OTA to exercise its judgement as the OTA has the engineering expertise and traffic data to make these complex far-reaching decisions regarding turnpike routes. We uphold the authority given to the OTA to decide routes for turnpikes…..To hold otherwise would inject this Court into the OTA’s decision-making process regarding proposed turnpike routes… The Court would not only be deciding the validity of the bonds but also substituting the OTA’s discretion with its own in choosing a route, which the Court has consistently refused to do… We are mandated to liberally construe the OTA’s authority. As previously held by this Court, we refuse to strictly construe these legislative authorizations and instead defer to the OTA’s technical expertise in determining routes. We follow our precendent that all matters or questions as to the routes of the proposed turnpikes will be settled in the future by the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority, within its descretion, or in some other manner, but no such question can affect the validity of this bond issue.” ~Oklahoma State Supreme Court Majority Opinion Case No. 120619.
The practical reality of Chevron was that any challenge to an agency or agency action was going to be decided based on an individual judges feelings towards the action rather than objective law. This is not how the courts were intended to work under the Constitution and the SCOTUS majority finally fixed this issue.
The more you know.
But back to the map and Location Authorization #28….
First of all, by statute, one location authorization = one tollroad or one interchange (except location authorization #10 which is a hot mess, containing the laughable and chronically poor performing turnpike to nowhere, the Chickasaw Turnpike).
Second of all, a kindergartner can have the location authorization read to them and follow along on a map and realize that it doesn’t, in any way possible, describe the southern extension route.
Why then, could SIX Supreme Court Justices not comprehend this point of fact?
Watching that video and internalizing what #28 described would help them truly understand the harmful consequences of their decision; giving the OTA unfettered power to build wherever they want. Their ruling, sucked up under “original jurisdiction for bond validation,” significantly undermined legislative intent and left Oklahoma citizens without recourse to address further statute violations.
But with the Chevron Doctrine obliterated by SCOTUS, any future judicial opinions *should* have to be steeped in actual rigorous interpretation of the law - not deference to agency interpretation of the law.
One can only hope….
But I digress.
Back to the matter at hand… that the Turnpike Enabling Act was “supplemental and additional to powers conferred by other laws.”
The original 1947 Section 671 statute was updated to Statute 69, Section 1721 in 1968 and still stands today.
After 77 years, it is high time that our elected officials and judicial branch understand this fact.
Maybe sometime soon we will see a day where the OTA isn’t allowed to run roughshod over the citizens and state laws.
Maybe sometime soon, someone in our state or federal government will hold the OTA accountable.
Maybe sometime soon, our judicial branch will figure out how to intellectually honestly interpret the law to appropriately check the power of a rogue public-private partnership.
Until then, it is up to We The People to understand our rights and continually and vocally call for change.
Are you interested in learning more and helping hold a rogue "state instrumentality” accountable to the people? PIKE OFF OTA (501 c4) and Oklahomans for Responsible Transportation, Foundation (501 c3) are leading the charge in legal injunctive avenues and legislative reform and they could use your help. They are trying to dismantle a corrupt Goliath within our state and are doing a great job. Be part of the solution!
www.pikeoffota.com
Join us on Facebook as well.