Another major Landowner's rights issue in front of US Supreme Court.

[waggy]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/30/koontz-case-to-protect-property-rights/

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District is the story of a family that was targeted for a bureaucratic shakedown and decided to fight back. The saga started more than 15 years ago, when the now-deceased Coy Koontz Sr. and his family asked for permission to commercially develop about four acres of land they owned in Orange County, Fla. The St. Johns River Water Management District responded that a permit would come with a price: Mr. Koontz would have to dedicate 11 acres for conservation and pay up to $150,000 for improvements on the district’s own property.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ase-to-protect-property-rights/#ixzz2LRyznm9a
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



It boils down to Should a landowner who wants to improve the property they own be forced to pay to fund other projects teh city have? or to give up land for it?

this is all in addition to the fee's they need for permits etc.

This ruleing is as important as Kelo V City of New London. Where they ruled for the city. Pretty much saying you really don't own the property and the city can take it at any time to give to a PRIVATE company. I really have little faith the courts will rule right. hopefully i am wrong on that.

IF they rule for the city landowners in the US are really really fucked.

 

[Leymenaide]

This type of land grab goes on a lot more often than you think. I spent a lot of time with the agricultural community. It is just understood that you will never developed a property that you own if you are a farmer unless you take in a well-connected lawyer or local politician.
The simple fact is this is a very corrupt country and the American people may watch Westerns but they do not act like Clint or John.

 

[waggy]

This type of land grab goes on a lot more often than you think. I spent a lot of time with the agricultural community. It is just understood that you will never developed a property that you own if you are a farmer unless you take in a well-connected lawyer or local politician.
The simple fact is this is a very corrupt country and the American people may watch Westerns but they do not act like Clint or John.

yeah i knew it was bad for farmers. IF you are a family owned farm it gets even worse. God forbid you have a barn that is old and you want tore down. that can and does cause major issues.

didn't think it was bad outside of the farming community though. Corporate farms are trying to get every farm they can.

 

[brandonb]

What rights?

This is my rental property city. Which I own the house and property. Not part of any housing administration or anything. Which I totally regret at this point:

Vacant for 30 days? City taxes you $150. Vacant for 1 year. The city will have you demolish your property. I was remodeling my property before renting it out, and I was forced into dealing with this. I redid everything plumbing, electrical, and was a rebuild down to the studs. They made me finish at their schedule of 1 year. I could not work on it at my own pace.
http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/docs/_FA0E2602_A701_4C7A_8669_7E0BC2E8B8AD_.pdf

Want to sell your house? Realize your house is not up to code? Take the house off the market? Can't afford to do anything about it? You go to jail! In my case: I bought it as-is, and agreed to get it up to code. Hence my remodeling above. But then get stuck with the vacant tax and risk of losing your entire investment if you don't finish in a year.
http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/docs/2013_pos/2013_pos_q_and_a.pdf

Have a house? Let your family live in it? Well, have to get a rental license and your house has to be inspected yearly and be up to code, and subject to the same conditions as the problem above. You can go to jail if you don't comply. What difference does it make if I have renters or live in it myself? Other than they want to force you into paying the renter tax?
http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/city_departments/rental_licensing.html

During the court case I had (because I went over the yearly remodeling timelimit, we went to court) I had the notes from the city gained through depositions/city records being pulled that the city was breaking into my house to see the progress without my permission and taking photo's etc. and performing their own inspections without notifications while the house was being worked on. I guess I know why the back door of the garage was kicked in now. Which of course they added to their inspection reports which they required me to fix (which happened every month during that 12 month period) I thought it was a criminal trying to steal my tools. But didn't notice any missing!

Thats just a sample. I imagine other places are just as bad or worse.

 

[waggy]

yeah the laws can get insane.

 

[werepossum]

I'd really like to see a silver lining in Obama's justices, but I too have little faith this will happen.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd really like to see a silver lining in Obama's justices, but I too have little faith this will happen.

You realize it was the left leaning judges that approved of land seizure? More of the same isn't going to help.

 

[Wreckem]

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/30/koontz-case-to-protect-property-rights/

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District is the story of a family that was targeted for a bureaucratic shakedown and decided to fight back. The saga started more than 15 years ago, when the now-deceased Coy Koontz Sr. and his family asked for permission to commercially develop about four acres of land they owned in Orange County, Fla. The St. Johns River Water Management District responded that a permit would come with a price: Mr. Koontz would have to dedicate 11 acres for conservation and pay up to $150,000 for improvements on the district’s own property.


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ase-to-protect-property-rights/#ixzz2LRyznm9a
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter



It boils down to Should a landowner who wants to improve the property they own be forced to pay to fund other projects teh city have? or to give up land for it?

this is all in addition to the fee's they need for permits etc.

This ruleing is as important as Kelo V City of New London. Where they ruled for the city. Pretty much saying you really don't own the property and the city can take it at any time to give to a PRIVATE company. I really have little faith the courts will rule right. hopefully i am wrong on that.

IF they rule for the city landowners in the US are really really fucked.

Edit: Just looking at the arguments, it doesn't look good for the land owner and it appears its because of the theory they were arguing, that there was taking under Nollan and Dolan. When Scalia doesn't appear to be taking your side in a takings case you are doomed.

Edit 2: I personally believe that if you are going to develop wetlands you should be required to mitigate that development. I don't think we would be here if the District just used their police powers to straight up deny the permit which they probably could have done. Instead they tried to work with him.

 

[werepossum]

You realize it was the left leaning judges that approved of land seizure? More of the same isn't going to help.

That was my point; I'd like to see a silver lining from them - taking a stand against government abuse of individuals - but I do not expect it.

We're literally one heart beat away from such votes being not the swing vote, but a solid and unshakable five-vote block. When that happens, the Constitution as we know it is over. The First Amendment will mean you have a right to dance naked, but not a right to express your views on political candidates. The Second Amendment will mean you have a right to be armed if and only if government hires you or drafts you and puts one in your hands. And the General Welfare clause will mean that our old "negative rights" will have to give way to our new "positive rights" - what government must do FOR you. At that point, Kelo v. New London will seem like a libertarian's pipe dream.

 

[waggy]

Edit: Just looking at the arguments, it doesn't look good for the land owner and it appears its because of the theory they were arguing, that there was taking under Nollan and Dolan. When Scalia doesn't appear to be taking your side in a takings case you are doomed.

Edit 2: I personally believe that if you are going to develop wetlands you should be required to mitigate that development. I don't think we would be here if the District just used their police powers to straight up deny the permit which they probably could have done. Instead they tried to work with him.

though why should he pay out 150k to Improve property that was not his? and many miles away?

 

[Wreckem]

though why should he pay out 150k to Improve property that was not his? and many miles away?

The mitigation was 4 or 7 miles away from the four acres he wanted to develop. I'm just saying, they probably could have legally straight up denied his permit as to all but 1.4 acres(though its not clear if the 1.4 acres that weren't protected were part of the 3.7 acre development plan). Instead they tried to work with them. If the property owners win, it will be just as much a loss as a win. Because you will then have this scenario, Oh you want to develop protected wetlands(or other protected/regulated lands)? Nope. Sorry we are using our valid police power to deny you outright. Instead of, you want to develop protected wetlands? Do this and we will let you.

 

[Doppel]

That was my point; I'd like to see a silver lining from them - taking a stand against government abuse of individuals - but I do not expect it.

We're literally one heart beat away from such votes being not the swing vote, but a solid and unshakable five-vote block. When that happens, the Constitution as we know it is over. The First Amendment will mean you have a right to dance naked, but not a right to express your views on political candidates. The Second Amendment will mean you have a right to be armed if and only if government hires you or drafts you and puts one in your hands. And the General Welfare clause will mean that our old "negative rights" will have to give way to our new "positive rights" - what government must do FOR you. At that point, Kelo v. New London will seem like a libertarian's pipe dream.

I am really hoping that the old justices can hang until next election. If Obama gets another one in there we'll see a lot of yucky rulings in coming years. Not holding my breath though.

 

[Wreckem]

I am really hoping that the old justices can hang until next election. If Obama gets another one in there we'll see a lot of yucky rulings in coming years. Not holding my breath though.

Like the conservative justices haven't issued some "yucky" opinions over the last decade.

 

[Doppel]

Like the conservative justices haven't issued some "yucky" opinions over the last decade.

yeah they have too corporate people

 

[DominionSeraph]

though why should he pay out 150k to Improve property that was not his? and many miles away?

They gave him the option to offset the environmental damage in order to get a permit. He chose not to. Thus no permit.
They didn't have to give him access to that property and could've just denied the permit outright. But they were nice.

 

[Wreckem]

...

 

[waggy]

The mitigation was 4 or 7 miles away from the four acres he wanted to develop. I'm just saying, they probably could have legally straight up denied his permit as to all but 1.4 acres(though its not clear if the 1.4 acres that weren't protected were part of the 3.7 acre development plan). Instead they tried to work with them. If the property owners win, it will be just as much a loss as a win. Because you will then have this scenario, Oh you want to develop protected wetlands(or other protected/regulated lands)? Nope. Sorry we are using our valid police power to deny you outright. Instead of, you want to develop protected wetlands? Do this and we will let you.

meh. the article says

Mr. Koontz was willing to dedicate the 11 acres, but he objected to paying for work at the government site, which was miles away and had no connection to his property or his project.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...ase-to-protect-property-rights/#ixzz2LUzc544x
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter


i have a issue him having to pay with something that is not connection to his property or project.

 

[Wreckem]

It doesn't much matter what any of us think. SCotUS doesn't appear to be siding with the property owner in this case. Like I said before, if Scalia is against you in oral arguments, its not a good sign.

Scalia kept asking where the taking was, what was taken, etc. He was never satisfied by the plaintiffs lawyer. He didn't appear to agree there was a taking.

It appears the plaintiffs lawyers misjudged on what issue to litigate, as several justices and even the respondents own lawyers conceded there may be due process claims. Actually, they probably knew they had a better shot on a due process claim but instead decided to make this a test case and that looks like it backfired.

After reading the transcripts from the oral arguments, I am betting 6-3. With Scalia writing a lengthy and longwinded concurrence, if not the opinion.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Private property rights exist at the wim of the government, so what do you expect?

Local governments can get pretty nasty when it comes to property rights; however, I dont see anything egregious here. Or I am missing something?

 

[xj0hnx]

They gave him the option to offset the environmental damage in order to get a permit. He chose not to. Thus no permit.
They didn't have to give him access to that property and could've just denied the permit outright. But they were nice.

Hahaha, always apologetically bowing to your government masters.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Hahaha, always apologetically bowing to your government masters.

Oh look, a conservative showing his ignorance. You really have no fucking clue how government works.

Every active conservatard here does nothing on this site but post in P&N. Where the fuck do these idiots crawl in from?

 

[Ausm]

Oh look, a conservative showing his ignorance. You really have no fucking clue how government works.

Every active conservatard here does nothing on this site but post in P&N. Where the fuck do these idiots crawl in from?

I come in here for pure entertainment and also to see first hand examples of the Rightist Fringe in this Country.

 

[1prophet]

Private property rights exist at the wim of the government, so what do you expect?

Local governments can get pretty nasty when it comes to property rights; however, I dont see anything egregious here. Or I am missing something?

Except for those in their good graces that grease their palms from time to time.:whiste:

 

[COPOHawk]

What rights?

This is my rental property city. Which I own the house and property. Not part of any housing administration or anything. Which I totally regret at this point:

Vacant for 30 days? City taxes you $150. Vacant for 1 year. The city will have you demolish your property. I was remodeling my property before renting it out, and I was forced into dealing with this. I redid everything plumbing, electrical, and was a rebuild down to the studs. They made me finish at their schedule of 1 year. I could not work on it at my own pace.
http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/docs/_FA0E2602_A701_4C7A_8669_7E0BC2E8B8AD_.pdf

Want to sell your house? Realize your house is not up to code? Take the house off the market? Can't afford to do anything about it? You go to jail! In my case: I bought it as-is, and agreed to get it up to code. Hence my remodeling above. But then get stuck with the vacant tax and risk of losing your entire investment if you don't finish in a year.
http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/docs/2013_pos/2013_pos_q_and_a.pdf

Have a house? Let your family live in it? Well, have to get a rental license and your house has to be inspected yearly and be up to code, and subject to the same conditions as the problem above. You can go to jail if you don't comply. What difference does it make if I have renters or live in it myself? Other than they want to force you into paying the renter tax?
http://www.ci.crystal.mn.us/city_departments/rental_licensing.html

During the court case I had (because I went over the yearly remodeling timelimit, we went to court) I had the notes from the city gained through depositions/city records being pulled that the city was breaking into my house to see the progress without my permission and taking photo's etc. and performing their own inspections without notifications while the house was being worked on. I guess I know why the back door of the garage was kicked in now. Which of course they added to their inspection reports which they required me to fix (which happened every month during that 12 month period) I thought it was a criminal trying to steal my tools. But didn't notice any missing!

Thats just a sample. I imagine other places are just as bad or worse.

My father owns a house in Crystal, MN...and this post is DEAD ON. Crystal is a suburb of Minneapolis with delusions of bureaucratic granduer...has for years. They turn regulation into an art-form...and pretend that it is the standard. It is actually a reasonable place to live, but I wouldn't live there due to city regulations...it isn't NYC or LA...just a ring suburb of Mpls.

 

[xj0hnx]

Oh look, a conservative showing his ignorance. You really have no fucking clue how government works.

Every active conservatard here does nothing on this site but post in P&N. Where the fuck do these idiots crawl in from?

Bow before the nanny state slave.