Supreme Court Deals Blow to Property Rights

Reason ^ | 6/23/17 | Eric Boehm

[Road Warrior ‘04]

As I see it, even if Kennedy would have voted in the affirmative against the socialists/communists, the lower courts ruling would have stood! Bring it up again when Kennedy and Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg take dirt naps! (I would have said 'when they leave', but I don't think either is going anywhere, voluntarily, soon)

Regardless, IMHO, the ruling is WRONG!

[DLfromthedesert]

The law can be changed through the state. Arizona protects property rights in cases like this.

[Sopater]

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

Because that isn't what they wanted to do. They wanted to sell one property and use the proceeds to improve the other property.

Why not just do what I will with mine own?

[BenLurkin]

The regulators would have been forced to buy the lot for pre=regulation FMV at the time they destroyed its value with their regulations.

[samtheman]

Because the idea was to sell the undeveloped lot to fix up the other lot, not sell both of them.

---

And there is a law that specifically says, “if you own 2 lots, you can only sell both of them, not just 1”?

I don’t get how the law was written to prevent that sale.

[Sgt_Schultze]

Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, and Sonia Sotomayor joined Kennedy

A local community where any of these five own property should pass legislation that severely diminishes the value of these justices property. Each has already signaled their approval. A lesson needs to be served - hard.

[fwdude]

Interesting how the 5 reliably leftist justices are always in lock step on diminishing freedom.

[Enchante]

""They have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property."

This is utterly ABSURD as a standard. Just because there may be "some" economic value remaining does not mean the govt has not drastically reduced/taken the economic value of their land. Oh, we take 90% of what you have, but we left you something, so it's true that we have not taken "all" of what you have -- be grateful !!! Just be glad for whatever crumbs the govt lets you keep.

[alancarp]

Yes, a hundred times yes: In what world is the loss of 90% of value not enough to trigger the 5th amendment?

Of course now between their eminent domain ruling some years ago and this, governments will now have carte blanche to run roughshod over property owners.

[Chgogal]

Kennedy and Scarecrow Lady both need to retire.

[Republican Wildcat]

Kennedy was also the 5th vote in the even more terrible Kelo v. New Haven, Connecticut decision which struck a blow to private property rights.

[marktwain]

Please, Kennedy..retire.

He certainly should. For the good of the country.

It is a good time for him to retire, and allow President Trump to replace him with a good republican...

[majormaturity]

The idea that Kennedy is a Libertarian was window dressing to get us to believe he isn’t owned by the Deep State. Can you see his true colors now?

[cpdiii]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion. "They have not been deprived of all economically beneficial use of their property."

So if I am walking down the street and Justice Kennedy puts a gun in my face and only robs me of 90% of my money, this is okay?

This is simply left wing activism by the Supreme Court and has no basis in constitutional law. Unfortunately it is now the law created out of thin air by 5 black robed activist statists .

The left does not really believe in property rights. To them the all powerful state is their god.

[SoConPubbie]

This is utterly ABSURD as a standard. Just because there may be "some" economic value remaining does not mean the govt has not drastically reduced/taken the economic value of their land. Oh, we take 90% of what you have, but we left you something, so it's true that we have not taken "all" of what you have -- be grateful !!! Just be glad for whatever crumbs the govt lets you keep.

Welcome to the wonderful world of Property Law as defined by the Supreme Court, NOT the Constitution.

[VietVet876]

Because the value of the two lots combined with existing improvements would be less than the value of two separate lots, one of which is improved.

[BobL]

“Please, Kennedy..retire”

There is a rumor. We’ll know in a week.

[cherry]

funny how the leftist judges always rule for the state against the people...

and Roberts?....he's already shown his cards....and he can go to hell..

[VietVet876]

I work for a local government as an eminent domain appraiser and if the Court had ruled for the landowner, it would be catastrophic for most all local governments as the volume of value lost through land use regulations on the local, state and federal levels would be staggering. I make no judgments here other than the SCOTUS opinion was probably swayed by that fact and lot much by the Constitution.

[editor-surveyor]

.
This has to be reversed by the congress.

We have to make this case a top priority, or the entire bill of rights is history.
.