To: Sopater
""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.
28 posted on
06/23/2017 3:02:14 PM PDT by
Enchante
(Searching throughout the country for one honest Democrat....)
To: Enchante
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.
35 posted on
06/23/2017 3:14:09 PM PDT by
SoConPubbie
(Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
To: Enchante
Actually, the same restrictions the are fighting made their other lot more valuable. These people want it both ways.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson