Skip to comments.Koontz case to protect property rights (at Supreme Court; Bureaucrats unfairly charge for permits)
Posted on 12/02/2012 8:49:58 PM PST by WilliamIII
The right to build a home or a business on your own land is basic to the very concept of property rights. Of course, government can impose reasonable conditions for health and safety, but too often, officials misuse land-use permitting to enrich the public sector rather than for legitimate regulation. In fact, many bureaucrats view the right to develop ones property as a privilege landowners must purchase, sometimes at the cost of their constitutional freedoms. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court recently accepted a Florida case that could force an attitude change on regulators across the country. 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 districts own property. 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. When he refused, his permit application was denied. Sadly, this kind of abuse is all too common.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Thanks to Obongo’s successful election theft, SCOTUS will soon have the Constitution and all Americans by the scrotum.
Elections have consequences.
This is actually fairly common, epecially where environmental or politically incorrect land uses are sought. I know of a company here in CA that wanted to expand its ops onto adjacent land that they owned. Before they could get the costly and lengthy permit, they had to buy property elsewhere and donate it to a nature conservency. I hope these folks win.
I guess, then, we should be calling it SCROTUS, instead of SCOTUS......great name in light of their recent fine work!....kudos...
But after the dwelling is built, the taxes will probably double or triple each year. It’s a lose lose situation for the taxpayers.
It’s explained right here: http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
Once you understand the Adgenda, it all becomes clear.....