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

[Tom]

First of all the right to own property comes from the government. Its clearly part of the Constitution that government can take property with compensation, from that its common sense they have a right to protect the value of property which is all this case is about.

The other case, what was wrong was the government taking it from one private entity and giving it to another private entity. That smells.

But I think its not accurate to say the "liberal" justices were responsible for that decision, there aren't 5 liberal justices so that can't be right.

 

[werepossum]

First of all the right to own property comes from the government. Its clearly part of the Constitution that government can take property with compensation, from that its common sense they have a right to protect the value of property which is all this case is about.

The other case, what was wrong was the government taking it from one private entity and giving it to another private entity. That smells.

But I think its not accurate to say the "liberal" justices were responsible for that decision, there aren't 5 liberal justices so that can't be right.

Four liberal justices plus one swing vote. However, if one conservative justice drops and Obama replaces him with another doctrinaire progressive, every issue becomes Kelo v. New London. That's not to say there won't be some issues where I prefer their ruling - sometimes the swing vote goes conservative when I think it should be with the libs - but the progressives will have the ability to totally restructure our country.

 

[Jhhnn]

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.

What you're saying is that you didn't do your homework before buying the property, right? And it's the Gubmint's fault you didn't, obviously....

In the case before the SCOTUS, there's obviously no "taking"- the owners are welcome to leave it as is. If they want to develop it, they have to deal with local authorities.

 

[Brainonska511]

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

For all the complaints about 'liberal judges' that constantly pop up around here, we need to throw some well-deserved recognition on those 'conservative' judges - turning back a lawsuit against warrantless wiretapping on international phone calls (due to lack of standing by any of the plaintiffs), basically shutting the door on any of those lawsuits.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/27/u...ts-challenge-to-fisa-surveillance-law.html?hp

 

[piasabird]

The City my sister lives in, you can not tare down any house. If it is a rathole ready to collapse you have to rebuid it. Heaven forbid you tared down a house and build a new energy efficient home.

 

[NoStateofMind]

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.

Jesus Christ! Capone would be proud of this extortion!