Search

Monday, January 26, 2015

HB 302

LC1359
Forrest Mandeville

Revise burden of proof laws related to subdivisions

2 comments:

  1. The following was sent to Representatives McConnell, Steenberg and Wilson:

    Missoula County opposes House Bill 302 - Revise burden of proof laws related to subdivisions, before House Local Government this afternoon. Because this bill does not allow the use of rebuttable presumptions, it would limit the ability of local jurisdictions to consider the unique facts and circumstances surrounding a proposed exemption. The inability of a governing body to consider each application as unique will likely lead to an increased number of exemption application denials that could have been approved under the current statutes. The bill also appears to contradict an earlier Supreme Court decision (Dreher v. Fuller) that states that rebuttable presumptions are legal. The changing of burden of proof violates established legal principles. The Supreme Court held that because exemptions of statues pertaining to health, safety, and welfare of the public should be narrowly construed, a party claiming the exemption should have the burden of proving his entitlement to the exemption. Please oppose HB 302.
    Respectfully,
    Vickie Zeier on behalf of the Missoula County Commissioners

    ReplyDelete
  2. Sending the following to Senator Barrett on Senate Local Government today at 1:

    Senator Barrett,
    Missoula County opposes House Bill 302 as amended- Revise burden of proof laws related to the use of a rebuttable presumption in subdivision exemptions before Senate Local Government this afternoon. This amended bill would limit the ability of local jurisdictions to consider the unique facts and circumstances surrounding a proposed exemption, and, as such, the bill may be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has held that because exemptions of statues pertaining to health, safety, and welfare of the public should be narrowly construed, a party claiming the exemption should have the burden of proving his/her entitlement to the exemption. Please oppose HB 302

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.