- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS: If you're not using land you own, the state can steal it
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:07 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:07 pm
Murr v Wisconsin ruling
Article from local paper
Article from local paper
quote:
But the county and the state say that the family's two adjacent parcels, taken together, would easily accommodate a single modern home, and so they have not really lost any value. The government also noted that the original owners were aware of the development restrictions when they sold the lots to their children.
6
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:12 pm to skrayper
They can steal it if you are using it...
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:13 pm to skrayper
quote:
KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined.
ROBERTS, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which THOMAS and ALITO, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.
GORSUCH, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
How shocking.
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 3:15 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:15 pm to skrayper
By the way, the progressive judges supported this.
Good job, progressives.
Good job, progressives.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:29 pm to skrayper
BUT TRUMP IS HITLER BECAUSE HE WANTS TO SELL OFF FEDERAL LANDS!!!!!!
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:32 pm to Wally Sparks
We need Kennedy to retire, immediately.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:34 pm to Scruffy
quote:
By the way, the progressive judges supported this.
So did the non-progressive judges
This wasn't progressive vs conservative.
This was state vs liberty, and state won. Thanks to judges from both aisles.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 3:51 pm to skrayper
Which non-progressive judge supported the state?
Posted on 6/23/17 at 4:01 pm to skrayper
quote:So did Kennedy.
So did the non-progressive judges
The non-progressives opposed this apparently.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 4:03 pm to skrayper
quote:
So did the non-progressive judges
Nah
Posted on 6/23/17 at 4:04 pm to skrayper
quote:
So did the non-progressive judges
This wasn't progressive vs conservative.
This was state vs liberty, and state won. Thanks to judges from both aisles.
An ex-Nola libertarian senate candidate Caleb Trotter works for the pacific legal defense fund and helped argue this case.
Spoke to him earlier today.
"Sad day for a good family and property rights in general. Good day for zealous land-use regulators".
Posted on 6/23/17 at 4:12 pm to skrayper
That's not the ruling.
This is commonplace land use law. People buy property at cheap because of zoning and master plans and then legally fight to develop despite restrictions previously known.
The deal with the dissent is how the majority re-characterized property for the takings clause.
This is commonplace land use law. People buy property at cheap because of zoning and master plans and then legally fight to develop despite restrictions previously known.
The deal with the dissent is how the majority re-characterized property for the takings clause.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 4:23 pm to skrayper
quote:
SCOTUS: If you're not using land you own, the state can steal it
Wow, misleading much?
I don't see where the state confiscated any land?
Only that there were land-use regulations in place, the family sold off a portion of their lot that had been merged into once parcel, and then wanted to be able to build on that new lot.
Plus, the Kennedy ruling seems to be narrow to just this case, and not an industry wide ruling. Seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:02 pm to mizzoubuckeyeiowa
quote:
This is commonplace land use law. People buy property at cheap because of zoning and master plans and then legally fight to develop despite restrictions previously known.
The deal with the dissent is how the majority re-characterized property for the takings clause.
That's not how I understood it. You can purchase land knowing full well of zoning restrictions and still sue and claim that it is an unconstitutional taking which requires just compensation if the government's restrictions essentially render the land devoid of any economic development.
However, what the Court just ruled is that if you have two small parcels of land that are adjacent to each other and determined to be unable to be developed separately the government can require you sell or develop both parcels as one. Essentially, the government can prevent you from selling a parcel that is impossible to develop. This is based in the governments interest and public policy that land development is good.
The Court did not say that the government could "take" this land. They simply said you can keep both parcels and do with it as you wish (in accordance with zoning laws) or you can see them both together. You can't split you one parcel into two super small ones.
This post was edited on 6/23/17 at 6:03 pm
Posted on 6/23/17 at 6:07 pm to Damone
quote:
BUT TRUMP IS HITLER BECAUSE HE WANTS TO SELL OFF FEDERAL LANDS!!!!!!
Right... because he most certainly didn't try to steal a citizen's land before.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News