Posted on 05/19/2016 10:38:15 AM PDT by reaganaut1
Eminent domain requires zero grandfathering. Kelo allows tbem to basically do whatever they want.
If they really wanted to be mean they could have civil asset forfeitured his behind.
They didnt tear down kenys house though.
This guy got run out.
The acronym stood for south of downtown south park.
Those several epsisodes were a good run of the show.
Typically all existing uses are grandfathered, but the hook is that if the property owner wants to expand then he has to meet the new development code. The other case is if the land is sold it has to be converted to meet the new code and can no longer operate as a repair shop in the case.
But this isn’t isolated to Dallas or other big cities. When I first moved to Klamath Falls Oregon I went to a barber shop for a haircut. It was Ken’s Barber Shop but Ken no longer owned it. The new owner left it that way because the City would have required him to make thousands of dollars in changes to the street front appearance of the building just for putting up a new sign.
We can’t allow a legal immigrant shown to be successful and working his way up from absolute poverty to a successful business man. Immigrants need to be shown as helpless infants reliant on caring democrat politicians. Something similar happened to me with eminent domain taking my land to give to a private developer. You can’t win. Some one like Trump will unleash an army of lawyers to take what they want all the while hiring the government to point the gun at you.
” Changing the zoning on a business ex post facto and then demanding that it conform to the new code surely is a “taking,” and should obligate the municipality to pay compensation for the value represented by the business activity over an anticipated number of years—something easily established from receipts, in this case.”
That could be a very tough case to prevail on. Very. And, I have some experience with these things though IANAL. Because the owner is to be compensated based upon the highest & best use..but that is for the BUILDING. The town is not taking the building. The business inside is something whose existence is as we know not guaranteed by anything other than the sweat of the owner. I’m not clear whether the owner can be compensated for that; and/or having to move the biz. It’s actually a fairly interesting case. (over and above the “fairness” part)
Perhaps a suit could be brought for tortious interference but it is very hard to get a verdict in a town where the judges tacitly support the town council or whatever it is. That could be a $100+K case to bring. And it is hard to sue a town engaged in zoning. Like it or not, that’s very much considered within their power. Very tough case, even though it seems so unfair.
Shame he’s not gay—
IOW, a homosexual infested liberal-progressive hangout.
As I read it, they didn't do this through eminent domain, but plain old zoning. I don't know the full implications of that, but I think it's important to fight these things, even if the likelihood of prevailing is slight. It puts the ideas and principles in circulation.
In the service of satan, the ACLU did this for decades to poison our culture before they actually started winning cases.
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.