Posted on 01/14/2013 8:20:52 PM PST by WilliamIII
ORLANDO, Florida (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments on Tuesday in a property-rights case that could have national implications about what government can require landowners to do in exchange for allowing them to develop their property. The plaintiff, Coy Koontz Jr., took over the case for his deceased father who in 1994 sued Florida's St. Johns River Water Management District after it denied him permits to dredge and fill in wetlands on his 15-acre (6-hectare) parcel because of concerns about possible environmental damage. Koontz's original development plan called for destroying more than three acres of protected wetlands in the Econlockhatchee River Hydrologic Basin near Orlando, Florida. Koontz offered to mitigate the damage by preserving about 11 acres of the site, but the water management district told him the law required him to do more.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
” 4 liberals, 4 conservatives, and 1 moron.”
I’m trying to figure out which is the moron.
Kennedy or Roberts?
I feel fortunate to live in a township where the “inspectors” know better than to harass residents. The general rule here is, “If it can’t be seen from the road, it’s okay to do it.” I remember one contractor showing me some work he did in my house and saying, “The inspector won’t have any problem with this.” I laughed and told him, “I’m the only inspector you need to worry about.”
That would be the guy who wrote both the majority and dissenting opinions on the Mengelecare ruling.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.