From the article:
To avoid liability in the case, the state and county told the Murrs they could combine the two parcels of land for regulatory purposes. This meant that even though the two pieces of land were separate and the Murr family paid taxes on them separately, the family would be unable to make a takings claim for one of the two parcels.
In short, they could sell both lots together, but not one or the other.
What liability? I guess that’s the part I’m not getting. I understand that the State was motivated by the urge to steal, as all States are, to one degree or another. But I’m just not following the RATIONALE. How does one owner of two parcels represent LIABILITY. Not talking about reality, but the stated reasoning. Were the supremes openly upholding the right of states to make random land-grabs? Of course not. They were pretending it was something else. I don’t follow the “something else”.