U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case

[radcen]

U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case

U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case

 

[CanadaJohn]

This only seems fair to me - the local government still retains the authority to determine land use in the public interest, however, they must compensate the owner for his loss of land value. I don't know enough about the case or circumstances, but I would hope it also would extend to people who find themselves stuck in a home or structure that is declared a heritage site without any ability to alter or renovate/update and often with great loss to the value of the property and its potential for sale.

 

[Eighty Deuce]

U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case

U.S. top court backs Florida property owner in land-use case

I am happy for the decision. I do not know the minutia though, as I would expect that land can be designated, such as with some zoning determination, or other specific development restrictions, that then is a part of that parcel moving forward. Such that the only compensation required is to the entity that owned the land at the time that its development was made more restrictive. I assume that is what is covered here.

I am also disappointed to once again see how misguided the left is on wanting to trample property rights, such as they did with the Kelo vs. New London, CT case.

 

[Master PO]

I am happy for the decision. I do not know the minutia though, as I would expect that land can be designated, such as with some zoning determination, or other specific development restrictions, that then is a part of that parcel moving forward. Such that the only compensation required is to the entity that owned the land at the time that its development was made more restrictive. I assume that is what is covered here.

I am also disappointed to once again see how misguided the left is on wanting to trample property rights, such as they did with the Kelo vs. New London, CT case.

the left hates the right to property, becuase it is the corner stone of all rights, and hurts their agenda.

if you read the communist manifesto, you will see its number 1 on the list, to get rid of property rights.

 

[radcen]

Here's what got to me...

Quote from linked article:
"In what legal universe could a law authorizing damages only for a 'taking' also provide damages when (as all agree) no taking has occurred?" Kagan wrote. "I doubt that inside-out, upside-down universe is the state of Florida."

How is not sucking all value out of a property not a taking? Taking can certainly be figurative as well as literal.

Quote from linked article:
Kagan also said the decision "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."

I most certainly hope so. Government needs to be reined in in this area.

 

[Thoreau72]

Though I very much favor responsible capitalism, in these last few years with knowledge gained, I am very very very suspicious of the US Chamber Of Commerce and any agenda it advances.

Undecided on this matter.