Left wing activists on Supreme court rule against you and your property, they love government....

2aguy

Diamond Member
Jul 19, 2014
111,834
52,098
2,290
Yep.....you don't own the property you own.........the left wing activists on the Supreme Court, much like they did with the Kelo decision have decided that government, not you, gets to determine what your property is worth....

When are kennedy and ginsberg going to get out of there....?

Supreme Court Limits Rights Of Property Owners

The Supreme Court constrained the rights of property owners Friday, establishing a test that favors government officials in assessing the loss of property value caused by government regulations.

Writing for a 5-3 court, Justice Anthony Kennedy explained that state and local officials can combine separate parcels of land in assessing whether local government has effectively seized private property through regulation, requiring compensation. Kennedy’s opinion was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts filed a fiery dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

The case concerned a Wisconsin family called the Murrs, who argued that the government has unconstitutionally taken their land by refusing to allow them to sell it.

“This is an unfortunate decision for the Murrs, and all property owners,” said John Groen, general counsel and vice president of the Pacific Legal Foundation, a public interest group that represented the family. “We are disappointed that the Court did not recognize the fundamental unfairness to the Murrs of having their separate properties combined, simply to avoid the protection of the takings clause.”

The Murr family owns two pieces of property on the St. Croix River in Wisconsin. They attempted to sell one of their waterfront lots (called “Lot E”) to finance improvements to a cabin they own on the second plot (called “Lot F”). The value of Lot E had been assessed at $400,000. Environmental officials blocked the sale for violating conservation rules. A county board further declared that state law required the two lots be merged into a single piece of property that could not be broken up and sold in smaller parcels.

In effect, the Murr family argues, the government-mandated merger of their properties stripped them of nearly half a million dollars, as they are now unable sell Lot E. They claim that this constitutes a violation of the Constitution’s takings clause, which prohibits the government from seizing private property for public use without “just compensation.”
 
Boy, we sure are going down hill fast.....
We have always had to get county officials and state approval to divide lots. The government tracks and regulates these boundries and when someone wants to split off a lot and the government has reason to not allow them to, they dont get the approval and it has been this way for over three centuries.

The only thing new here is that the split was disapproved for environmental reasons and that is not that new either.
 
The bullshit eminent domain with government determining land values was OK when they wanted to build the Keystone XL pipeline & will be OK with you dipsticks when they stsrt building Trump's wall.
 
So does Trump....

This is one case I agree'd with him at the debates. Fuck yes, the government should be able to buy land to build infrastructure.


That isn't what this is....this is a taking of property without just compensation......for no apparent reason......
 
Boy, we sure are going down hill fast.....
We have always had to get county officials and state approval to divide lots. The government tracks and regulates these boundries and when someone wants to split off a lot and the government has reason to not allow them to, they dont get the approval and it has been this way for over three centuries.

The only thing new here is that the split was disapproved for environmental reasons and that is not that new either.


Then they need to be compensated...right? Especially if it makes it impossible for them to sell the land...right? Otherwise....they will lose the property eventually, and the government or one of the minions will buy up the land cheap...right?
 
Boy, we sure are going down hill fast.....
We have always had to get county officials and state approval to divide lots. The government tracks and regulates these boundries and when someone wants to split off a lot and the government has reason to not allow them to, they dont get the approval and it has been this way for over three centuries.

The only thing new here is that the split was disapproved for environmental reasons and that is not that new either.


Then they need to be compensated...right? Especially if it makes it impossible for them to sell the land...right? Otherwise....they will lose the property eventually, and the government or one of the minions will buy up the land cheap...right?
According to the court ruling, nope.
 
First of all, dipstick. No property was taken. The owners still own both lots.

What was stopped was the sale of one lot because it did not meet current lot size rules.

Furthermore the original owners knew of this restriction when they sold it. If the buyers did their due diligence prior to buying, they would have known it also.

Now after the fact, these whiny assholes want to government to pay them money because of the restrictions that were in place when they bought the land. Sounds to me like you are supporting whiners duping the government out of money.
 
First of all, dipstick. No property was taken. The owners still own both lots.

What was stopped was the sale of one lot because it did not meet current lot size rules.

Furthermore the original owners knew of this restriction when they sold it. If the buyers did their due diligence prior to buying, they would have known it also.

Now after the fact, these whiny assholes want to government to pay them money because of the restrictions that were in place when they bought the land. Sounds to me like you are supporting whiners duping the government out of money.


The government has no claim to any money....dipshit......it is their land and they should be able to sell it...if the government tells them they can't, the government needs to pay them for that land since it is, in fact, a taking of the value of that land.....
 
Then they need to be compensated...right? Especially if it makes it impossible for them to sell the land...right? Otherwise....they will lose the property eventually, and the government or one of the minions will buy up the land cheap...right?
The value is only speculative and the value given by the county assessment is very different and what the government operates from.
 
Boy, we sure are going down hill fast.....
We have always had to get county officials and state approval to divide lots. The government tracks and regulates these boundries and when someone wants to split off a lot and the government has reason to not allow them to, they dont get the approval and it has been this way for over three centuries.

The only thing new here is that the split was disapproved for environmental reasons and that is not that new either.


Then they need to be compensated...right? Especially if it makes it impossible for them to sell the land...right? Otherwise....they will lose the property eventually, and the government or one of the minions will buy up the land cheap...right?

Howcwuill threy loser it? They own the adjoining propdert
First of all, dipstick. No property was taken. The owners still own both lots.

What was stopped was the sale of one lot because it did not meet current lot size rules.

Furthermore the original owners knew of this restriction when they sold it. If the buyers did their due diligence prior to buying, they would have known it also.

Now after the fact, these whiny assholes want to government to pay them money because of the restrictions that were in place when they bought the land. Sounds to me like you are supporting whiners duping the government out of money.


The government has no claim to any money....dipshit......it is their land and they should be able to sell it...if the government tells them they can't, the government needs to pay them for that land since it is, in fact, a taking of the value of that land.....

They can't sell it because of restrictions in place before they bought it.

The government is not taking any money from them.

They still own both parcels.

Say I own 100 acres that has a noted restriction of development because of wetlands that I sell as-is.

You buy this without researching.

You go to develop it & discover you can't.

Whose fault is it? Do you think you have the right to demand the government pay you the difference in land value from developable land and restricted land?

Of course not.
 
First of all, dipstick. No property was taken. The owners still own both lots.

What was stopped was the sale of one lot because it did not meet current lot size rules.

Furthermore the original owners knew of this restriction when they sold it. If the buyers did their due diligence prior to buying, they would have known it also.

Now after the fact, these whiny assholes want to government to pay them money because of the restrictions that were in place when they bought the land. Sounds to me like you are supporting whiners duping the government out of money.


Wrong...they changed the law after the family owned it......and then blocking the sale, the village offered them 40,000 dollars, not 400,000 dollars, the real worth.

In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment - Hot Air

The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county – the only entity legally entitled to buy it – offered them $40K.

:
In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment
Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the Takings Clause. With this week’s decision, those hopes are dashed. Eric Boehm at Reasonexplains what this is doing to the rights of property owners.
 
First of all, dipstick. No property was taken. The owners still own both lots.

What was stopped was the sale of one lot because it did not meet current lot size rules.

Furthermore the original owners knew of this restriction when they sold it. If the buyers did their due diligence prior to buying, they would have known it also.

Now after the fact, these whiny assholes want to government to pay them money because of the restrictions that were in place when they bought the land. Sounds to me like you are supporting whiners duping the government out of money.


Wrong...they changed the law after the family owned it......and then blocking the sale, the village offered them 40,000 dollars, not 400,000 dollars, the real worth.

In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment - Hot Air

The property in question had been valued at $400K. The county – the only entity legally entitled to buy it – offered them $40K.

:
In Murr V. Wisconsin, SCOTUS deals another blow to the Fifth Amendment
Because the state, through changes in laws which did not apply when the family acquired the land, had completely gutted its worth, the Murr family sued to be properly compensated under the Takings Clause. With this week’s decision, those hopes are dashed. Eric Boehm at Reasonexplains what this is doing to the rights of property owners.


The family bought the property - sneaky statement implying no sale between family members. The parents owned it & then sold it to their kids.

The parents were aware of the restrictions when they sold it to their kids.


Supreme Court rules against Wisconsin family's property rights claim
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top