Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

Reason ^ | 6/23/17 | Eric Boehm

[TexasGator]

“When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000.”

LOL! Article is so full if fake news.

[TexasGator]

“So dropping the worth of one lot from $400,000 to $40,000 isn’t a taking.”

The developed lot was appraised for about $370k. The value of both together was appraised to be almost $700k.

Both lots are very similar. That means the second lot if sold with the first would be about $330k. At least according to the dude’s appraiser.

[SMGFan]

reason for Justice term limit of 18 years or be reconfirmed?

[Ozark Tom]

Purchase of lots occurred in the 1960’s. Regulations impacting land use along the river occurred 1980’s. Sale of a lot, adjoining their lot with a cabin, contemplated in 2004. Taxes on a $400,000 lot would be different than a $40,000 lot. What does the tax payment record support?

What was the history of real estate valuation used by the county/state for property tax purposes all the preceding decades??? Once the regulations which impacted property valuation came into force, was a reassessment on value for tax purposes made—were the accessed property taxes reduced? Was the local government negligent in interpretation or application of a law impacting real estate value, thus taxing the property at an inappropriate rate?

[Svartalfiar]

Why not join the two parcels and have it valuated (with improvements) as a single lot?

Because that's not what they want to do. They wanted to sell the vacant lot, purchased for investment value, in order to pay to upgrade the improved lot. But the county messed up the value of that second lot, and they simply want to be compensated for the county making the property lose 90% of its value.

Murr's parents bought the land in the 1960s, built a cabin on one parcel, and left the other parcel undeveloped as a long-term investment. The family attempted to sell the vacant parcel to pay for renovations to the cabin, but were prevented from doing so by regulations restricting the use of land along rivers like the St. Croix approved by the state in the 1980s, long after the purchase of both lots.

[Svartalfiar]

“The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it.”

One of the many fake facts in the article.

Oh really? And how much was it appraised for? Why don't you actually contribute to the conversation instead of wasting time and bandwidth posting useless comments. Every article I've seen about this gives the $400k number, and houses in the area are around $600k+. So a $400k valuation that lacks a house sounds right.

[Svartalfiar]

Too bad the subject in this suit did not sell when the price was alleged to be 400,000. It would also be interesting to know what value the country was using to calculate the taxes paid at the last payment. Are they going to reduce the taxes to those applicable to 40gs?

Because they didn't want to sell it until recently, when they decided to make improvements on the first parcel that included the house. And if you read deeper, the regs that stopped them from doing anything went into place back in 1975 I think. It was kept as an investment property until now, so they couldn't have sold it for $400k anyway. They tried to now, and that's when the county said no and offered them $40k (since the county is the only entity that can buy the lot separate from the other one).

[Svartalfiar]

The knew the restrictions when they got it.

You are an idiot. They originally purchased the lot in 1959, when there were no restrictions. Those weren't put in place until 1975. Stop posting comments when you not only don't know the facts, but are specifically stating incorrect facts.

[TexasGator]

“You are an idiot. They originally purchased the lot in 1959, when there were no restrictions. “

You’re the idiot for believing the click-bait article. They didn’t get the lots till the 1990’s.

[TexasGator]

“Why don’t you actually contribute to the conversation”

I have. I have given specifics and referred those in error to read the actual decision.

But some here prefer to argue instead of looking up the facts.

[TexasGator]

"You are an idiot. They originally purchased the lot in 1959, when there were no restrictions. Those weren't put in place until 1975. Stop posting comments when you not only don't know the facts, but are specifically stating incorrect facts."

FACT: "Lot F was conveyed to them in 1994, and Lot E was conveyed to them in 1995."

Stop posting comments when you not only don't know the facts, but are specifically stating incorrect facts."

[TexasGator]

"Oh really? And how much was it appraised for? "

According to the dude's appraiser ...

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

$40k.

[TexasGator]

“houses in the area are around $600k+. “

An old cabin in the flood-plain only feet from the edge of the river and has been flooded at least five times does not add any value to the lot.

[TexasGator]

“Nice to see Roberts pulled his head out on this one. “

You obviously did not read his ‘dissent’.

Roberts:

The Court today holds that the regulation does not effect ataking that requires just compensation. This bottom-line conclusion does not trouble me; the majority presents a fair case that the Murrs can still make good use of bothlots, and that the ordinance is a commonplace tool topreserve scenic areas, such as the Lower St. Croix River, for the benefit of landowners and the public alike.

[TexasGator]

“Regardless, IMHO, the ruling is WRONG! “

All justices agreed that it was the correct legal decision.

Roberts: The Court today holds that the regulation does not effect ataking that requires just compensation. This bottom-line conclusion does not trouble me; the majority presents a fair case that the Murrs can still make good use of bothlots, and that the ordinance is a commonplace tool topreserve scenic areas, such as the Lower St. Croix River, for the benefit of landowners and the public alike.

Thomas: I join THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s dissent because it correctly applies this Court’s regulatory takings precedents, whichno party has asked us to reconsider. The Court, however, has never purported to ground those

[TexasGator]

“A local community where any of these five ‘

Seven. All agreed that the decision was legally warranted.

[Nuc 1.1]

There is the enemy of freedom folks. The Federal Courts from top to bottom.

[Sopater]

Disappointed that you post an article full of errors instead of posting the actual decision...

Here's the decision. Feel better?

[Svartalfiar]

According to the dude's appraiser ... . . . . . . . . . . $40k.

Um, no. It was appraised at $400k before the county said he couldn't sell it. At which point they weren't allowed to sell the second lot, UNLESS they sold it to the county, which offered them $40k.

[TexasGator]

“Um, no. It was appraised at $400k before the county said he couldn’t sell it. “

Um, no. It was never appraised at $400k.

And the county never said they couldn’t sell it.