Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

LISTEN: Justice Alito Fired Up in Case Pitting Property Owners Against EPA
ABC ^ | January 17, 2012 | Ariane de Vogue

Posted on 01/17/2012 8:11:13 AM PST by WilliamIII

Justice Samuel Alito seemed none too pleased last week with the government’s argument in a case pitting property owners against the Environmental Protection Agency.

Four years ago, Mike and Chantell Sackett bought property to build their dream home near a lake in Idaho. After obtaining local permits the Sacketts began work, pouring in some land fill. But their work came to a screeching halt when they were visited by officials from the Environmental Protection Agency. The couple was slapped with a compliance order asserting that the land is subject to the Clean Water Act and that they had illegally placed fill material into protected wetlands on their property.

A violation of the compliance order could cost the Sacketts tens of thousands of fines per day. They sought to challenge the EPA’s finding in court, but were told that that they needed to go through a permitting process first, and only after the EPA moved to enforce the order could they seek judicial review.

(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; US: District of Columbia; US: Idaho
KEYWORDS: agenda21; bhoepa; bloodoftyrants; communism; corruption; crushepa; envirofascism; epa; epacorruption; epajackboots; fraud; govtabuse; lping; obama; rapeofliberty; sackett; scotus; socialistdemocrats; tyranny; waronliberty

1 posted on 01/17/2012 8:11:16 AM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Without private property, there is no freedom.
The EPA needs to have its powers severely curtailed.


2 posted on 01/17/2012 8:13:06 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

The EPA needs to be eliminated.


3 posted on 01/17/2012 8:19:06 AM PST by WayneS (Comments now include 25% MORE sarcasm for no additional charge...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB
First thing we need to do is change its name, and then.........no EPA to bitch at. This is a joke!!!!!! Hope you get it!

Actually I think we could live without the ATF and the EPA and the gropers at the airport. All three are as useless as tits on a boar hog.

4 posted on 01/17/2012 8:20:14 AM PST by org.whodat (What is the difference in Newt's, Perry's and Willard's positions on Amnesty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

The list of gummit entities that we can do without is endless...........


5 posted on 01/17/2012 8:21:51 AM PST by basil (It's time to rid the country of "gun free zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

God bless Associate Justice Alito!


6 posted on 01/17/2012 8:22:08 AM PST by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

Too bad the Supreme Court can´t muster the courage to vet Obama.


7 posted on 01/17/2012 8:22:16 AM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Imagine what the court will look like with 4 more year of Obama.
8 posted on 01/17/2012 8:24:51 AM PST by CaptainK (...please make it stop. Shake a can of pennies at it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB; Dr. Bogus Pachysandra; grey_whiskers; ApplegateRanch; Whenifhow; WL-law; Berlin_Freeper; ...
"Without private property, there is no freedom.
The EPA needs to have its powers severely curtailed."

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

9 posted on 01/17/2012 8:29:19 AM PST by steelyourfaith (If it's "green" ... it's crap !!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The EPA has been infiltrated with Agenda 21 adherents from top to bottom. If this monster is not killed and replaced the right to own property will not endure.

The same applies to most state run departments of ecology and/or environment.

10 posted on 01/17/2012 8:30:34 AM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

We had a lawyer friend who took on the state version of the EPA in Connecticut about 15 years ago, in a case where they refused permission for someone to build an access road into their house because there was a puddle in the ground. The lawyer won, and was awarded a million and a half to split with the owner.

We know someone down the hill from us in Vermont who planned to move their ancient house back a hundred more feet from the road, so the headlights would glare into their windows and some car coming down the hill wouldn’t crash into the house. But the town had put a culvert under a class 4 dirt road that ran just above their house, and the water had collected where they wanted to go. Some “wetlands” plant had started to grow in the puddle. Permission refused. This was a small “wetland” that had been caused by the recently installed culvert, and which they would have moved just a little further down the slope.

These regulators are NUTS.


11 posted on 01/17/2012 8:30:41 AM PST by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainK
Imagine what the court will look like with 4 more year of Obama.

Photobucket

12 posted on 01/17/2012 8:44:04 AM PST by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cicero
"These regulators are NUTS."

They aren't exactly nuts as much as they are on a mission to spread their religion of Gaia worship. The armies of environmental bureaucrats who have studied 'opinion' and absolutely believe in global warming wetland sanctity and human evils are embedded in all departments of ecology, environment, planning, permitting and zoning. They now control water boards, shoreline management committees, storm water run off departments, traffic management and eventually, human housing administration where they hope to design and dictate where and how everyone will live.

13 posted on 01/17/2012 9:03:50 AM PST by Baynative (The penalty for not participating in politics is you will be governed by your inferiors.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
Contrast Kagan

...In Monday's hearing, Justice Elena Kagan questioned why the Sacketts didn't simply file for a wetlands permit. "Couldn't you have gotten the legal determination that you wanted through that process?" Attorneys for the Sacketts say the process would be exceptionally costly and time-consuming, especially when they maintain that there is no need for such a permit because their lot doesn't contain wetlands.

14 posted on 01/17/2012 9:21:20 AM PST by opentalk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The epa-Dragon needs to feed.


15 posted on 01/17/2012 9:21:56 AM PST by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

The epa-Dragon needs to feed.


16 posted on 01/17/2012 9:22:21 AM PST by RobinOfKingston (The instinct toward liberalism is located in the part of the brain called the rectal lobe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: opentalk

Well, then, if you can’t afford to navigate all the hoops and hurdles we put in front of you, you shouldn’t be owning property. Owning property should be reserved for the ruling class, like us. Why do you think we even PUT those hurdles and hoops up if not to filter who gets to own property?

/kaganthink


17 posted on 01/17/2012 9:31:30 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler
God bless Associate Justice Alito!

Indeed!

As a reminder, Justice Alito is 75, as is Justice Kennedy. At that age, there exists the strong possibility that the next President might be replacing one of these men, if not both of them.

18 posted on 01/17/2012 9:35:04 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler; Drew68
As a reminder, Justice Alito is 75,

Oops. I meant Justice Scalia.

19 posted on 01/17/2012 9:36:46 AM PST by Drew68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat
Actually I think we could live without the ATF and the EPA and the gropers at the airport. All three are as useless as tits on a boar hog.

A titted-boar hog won't throw you in jail, shoot you, stomp your cat, kick your pregnant wife in the belly, have your citizenship revoked and you tossed in Gitmo for talking back to them, etc., etc., etc. How I wish that these dictatorial agencies were merely useless.

20 posted on 01/17/2012 9:40:14 AM PST by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: onedoug
Too bad the Supreme Court can´t muster the courage to vet Obama.
They were too busy taking away our private property rights via eminent domain.
21 posted on 01/17/2012 9:42:14 AM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
As a reminder, Justice Alito is 75,

Oops. I meant Justice Scalia.

Points out the need to get rid of Obama. Not only will Obama be non-accountable for the next 4 years, not only will he appoint ALL federal judges (and often the lower level ones are more important, seeing as how the Supremes take only about 1 in 100 cases appealed to them), but he'll also continue to appoint the top people in every single agency and department in government. I hate like Hell to say it, but I'll gladly vote for Romney over the current Destroyer-in-Chief. Besides, Romney's wife isn't a PMSing Wookie.

22 posted on 01/17/2012 9:43:52 AM PST by Ancesthntr (Bibi to Odumbo: Its not going to happen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MrB
The EPA needs to have its powers severely curtailed.

Here is where it gets them.

The only way I can see to challenge the EPA's powers is to point out their inherent lack of suitability for the charge of abiding by said treaties. Government agencies that derive their funding BECAUSE a species is in trouble are at a structural conflict of interest in restoring sufficient numbers for survival. That is our opening. I've been working for fourteen years to get somebody interested in taking advantage of it. So far, no takers. Hence, I'm in the process of doing it on my own with the faith that G-d will provide the resources when the time comes.

23 posted on 01/17/2012 9:50:47 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Drew68

Samuel Alito was born April 1, 1950 in Trenton, NJ, to parents who were naturalized citizens. His father was born in Naples, but came here with Judge Alito’s grandparents in 1914 a babe in arms of age 6 months.

Justice Alito said of his hard-working father Samuel (birth name Salvatore): “He resented having to put down any ethnicity on a form. He would put down just plain American. He had earned the right through hard work to be simply called American.”

Something to remember on Martin Luther King Day, or any day. There are NO hyphenated Americans. We are AMERICANS.


24 posted on 01/17/2012 9:54:08 AM PST by bvw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

If proving a conflict of interest were truly sufficient to justify the dismantling of a government agency,

inherently, there wouldn’t be any government agencies.

They, by definition (as we have recently seen with the ATF), need to perpetuate the “problem” in order to justify their existance.


25 posted on 01/17/2012 9:55:05 AM PST by MrB (The difference between a Humanist and a Satanist - the latter knows whom he's working for)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr

True


26 posted on 01/17/2012 9:55:14 AM PST by org.whodat (What is the difference in Newt's, Perry's and Willard's positions on Amnesty.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MrB
If proving a conflict of interest were truly sufficient to justify the dismantling of a government agency, inherently, there wouldn’t be any government agencies.

Proving a conflict of interest is but one step of many. Having a demonstrably superior alternative, both technically and in the law is also necessary. I've found a way to meet both those criteria. Finally, one must have standing in the case. Got that too.

Any more defeatism for sale?

27 posted on 01/17/2012 10:02:47 AM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

Good for you Mark! Godspeed, my friend.


28 posted on 01/17/2012 10:19:22 AM PST by bigfootbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: digger48

It wouldn’t “look like America”, rather it would look like D.C., that “wretched hive of scum and villainy.”


29 posted on 01/17/2012 10:41:49 AM PST by thulldud (Is it "alter or abolish" time yet?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: org.whodat

Airport “gropers” cold be eliminated very safely and cheaply. All that needs to be done is the way that Israel did with their busses.
When the bad guys wanted to self-imolate and take out school kids etc., Israel just put packets of lard on their busses.
Ya think some muzzie’s gonna blow himself up and get coated w/lard? Then he couldn’t go to the land of 72 virgins. Poor boy. I think that they got the idea from how the Brits eliminated th babrary pirates...Wrapped the bodies in a pigskin...Fight over!


30 posted on 01/17/2012 10:42:49 AM PST by bog trotter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII; P-Marlowe

The government argues (EPA lawyer?) that the EPA normally gives pre-notice not to build on a wetland. Presumably they can’t prove it in this case.

Alito says, “So What.”

Earlier, Alito had asked what is the normal America supposed to think when they’re developing their home and some government agency comes in to tell them they’re in violation, that they’re gonna be fined up to 75 grand, that their back yard is a wetland, that they have to undo all the work they’ve already done, and that they can’t appeal the EPA’s order UNLESS the EPA FIRST chooses to sue them.

The lawyer’s response was that citizens normally get pre-notified about this stuff.

Alito says “So What!”

Does he mean any more than, who cares you didn’t give advance notice?


31 posted on 01/17/2012 11:11:12 AM PST by xzins (Newt Gingrich Cleaned Up In Last Night's Debate! Awesome Performance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carry_Okie

If you go to the Supreme Court link given on the cbs news page, you can listen to the full argument between the Justices and the Attorneys. The process itself is interesting, but in the end, the Justices accept the case.

They recognized the No-win catch 22 imposed upon the people by the EPA. One of the Justices remarked that it’s worse even than they originally thought.

This recognition may not help the Sacketts in the short run, but I think (what it looks like to me) is that the EPA is gong to have to amend their procedures. It wouldn’t surprise me if the EPA continues to try to schtick the $75K/day fines under the old law, but they’ll be forced to remedy their processes which will help others in the future.

Currently, there’s really nothing overseeing or regulating anything they say, or do regarding the environment. They have absolute power.


32 posted on 01/17/2012 11:19:55 AM PST by PrairieLady2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: MrB
Without private property, there is no freedom.

Hence, it is at the very root of the Democrat agenda.

I recall the story from a couple of years ago where a young 1st-grade teacher at a government school had her class, on the first day of school, dump all the supplies they had excitedly shopped for with their mothers during the prior week - - pencils, sharpeners, paper pads, crayons, etc., - - in a pile on the floor and then told the kids to help themselves to whatever they thought they needed. True story. You can guess what happened, and how many kids were left in tears.

But is there any doubt that this moron teacher is STILL a Democrat, a communist, and a true believer?

33 posted on 01/17/2012 11:36:19 AM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

It is about dang time the Supremes get fired up about the constitution and rule of law in the US. If they keep on sleeping and playing footsies with the elite, they will have no constitutional Republic to defend. Then they can retire and stop betraying and pretending.


34 posted on 01/17/2012 11:46:18 AM PST by SaraJohnson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Drew68
thanks for the correction...as Alito is only 61 years old.
35 posted on 01/17/2012 12:24:05 PM PST by haircutter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2
From the first chapter of my first book:

Once an economic factor has been rendered into a democratized commons, claims against uses producing transformation products can then be effected through the courts. These claims can be brought by anyone and focus exclusively upon controlling negatively valued transformation products without consideration of the total integrated impact of the contested use. (Since when did anybody sue in order to pay for a positive externality?)

As concentrations of transformation products in process outputs approach zero, minute reductions in pollutants can greatly increase the cost of treatment. As the cost of compliance consumes a higher fraction of the sale price of the economic good, the return on the original use approaches zero. Once the return on assets goes negative, investment in improving technology to reduce production of negative externalities becomes negatively valued as well. Few would develop new control technology because few could pay for it. If there is no return on the use of the asset, that use of the property will be abandoned, as it has become a zero-priced good. Negative investment return destroys the market value of the use.

Both claimant and agent are thus motivated to focus upon those transformation products that are most difficult to control, because it is those properties that are most likely to convert the use of the asset to that which they prefer. The fight between landowners, regulators, and activists then degenerates into increasingly trivial arguments regarding specifications, measurements, and enforcement that have increasingly large financial consequences for the owner. Remedial measures thus structurally diverge from an objective assessment of the total impact upon environmental health because that was never the claimants' primary objective.

Rarely does either acquiring interest consider the possible unintended consequences of their actions, among other reasons because they have little experience in actual operations and no accountability for the consequences. The legal process is thus alienated from its purpose to establish justice, just as the regulatory process is directed away from ecological health. There is little civic accountability for maintaining a successful balance among competing interests, indeed, very likely the contrary is true. Problems are sources of civic claims by which to control the entire economy, a motivational structure antithetical to the very purpose of regulation.

As claims proliferate, the legislatures and courts are overwhelmed with cases that are technical and difficult to prove. They rely upon opinions from supposedly disinterested experts regarding the impacts of transformation products. Neither legislators or courts have the power to enforce a judgement; that power lies exclusively with the executive branch of government. The demand for expediency seduces legislatures and the courts to default upon their Constitutional responsibility, to the only civic agency with relevant expertise and police power. Control of use and, thus ownership of that use, is effectively transferred to the executive branch of government.

When taking land out of production profits the financial sponsors of a claim, it is cheaper to control the target use than to compensate the owner or buy the property. All it takes to manipulate a resource market by democratic means is to buy out the competition by manipulating majority perceptions about the risk of ecological harm associated with that target use. The few who can profit by taking competing resources out of production then have reason to sponsor the investment in political or legal action. They focus the first case against a weak target or obvious problem (which is why most such takings appear as local actions).

Established precedent then extends the applicability of cited legislation and lowers the cost successive claims. Property owners gradually lose their ability to finance the cost of compliance or legal resistance. Absent a profitable use, the market value of the target use approaches zero. After repeated exercise of external controls, purchase of the residual asset value concludes any remaining claim by an owner.

When a rival owner produces a competing or substitute good, the financial advantages of such tacit property acquisitions can be enormous. For example, if a developer funded public concerns about the negatively valued transformation products of farming to render the use of farmland non-economic and ripe for development, the land becomes less expensive to purchase.

>Once an economic factor has been rendered into a democratized commons, claims against uses producing transformation products can then be effected through the courts. These claims can be brought by anyone and focus exclusively upon controlling negatively valued transformation products without consideration of the total integrated impact of the contested use. (Since when did anybody sue in order to pay for a positive externality?)

As concentrations of transformation products in process outputs approach zero, minute reductions in pollutants can greatly increase the cost of treatment. As the cost of compliance consumes a higher fraction of the sale price of the economic good, the return on the original use approaches zero. Once the return on assets goes negative, investment in improving technology to reduce production of negative externalities becomes negatively valued as well. Few would develop new control technology because few could pay for it. If there is no return on the use of the asset, that use of the property will be abandoned, as it has become a zero-priced good. Negative investment return destroys the market value of the use.

Both claimant and agent are thus motivated to focus upon those transformation products that are most difficult to control, because it is those properties that are most likely to convert the use of the asset to that which they prefer. The fight between landowners, regulators, and activists then degenerates into increasingly trivial arguments regarding specifications, measurements, and enforcement that have increasingly large financial consequences for the owner. Remedial measures thus structurally diverge from an objective assessment of the total impact upon environmental health because that was never the claimants' primary objective.

Rarely does either acquiring interest consider the possible unintended consequences of their actions, among other reasons because they have little experience in actual operations and no accountability for the consequences. The legal process is thus alienated from its purpose to establish justice, just as the regulatory process is directed away from ecological health. There is little civic accountability for maintaining a successful balance among competing interests, indeed, very likely the contrary is true. Problems are sources of civic claims by which to control the entire economy, a motivational structure antithetical to the very purpose of regulation.

As claims proliferate, the legislatures and courts are overwhelmed with cases that are technical and difficult to prove. They rely upon opinions from supposedly disinterested experts regarding the impacts of transformation products. Neither legislators or courts have the power to enforce a judgement; that power lies exclusively with the executive branch of government. The demand for expediency seduces legislatures and the courts to default upon their Constitutional responsibility, to the only civic agency with relevant expertise and police power. Control of use and, thus ownership of that use, is effectively transferred to the executive branch of government.

When taking land out of production profits the financial sponsors of a claim, it is cheaper to control the target use than to compensate the owner or buy the property. All it takes to manipulate a resource market by democratic means is to buy out the competition by manipulating majority perceptions about the risk of ecological harm associated with that target use. The few who can profit by taking competing resources out of production then have reason to sponsor the investment in political or legal action. They focus the first case against a weak target or obvious problem (which is why most such takings appear as local actions).

Established precedent then extends the applicability of cited legislation and lowers the cost successive claims. Property owners gradually lose their ability to finance the cost of compliance or legal resistance. Absent a profitable use, the market value of the target use approaches zero. After repeated exercise of external controls, purchase of the residual asset value concludes any remaining claim by an owner.

When a rival owner produces a competing or substitute good, the financial advantages of such tacit property acquisitions can be enormous. For example, if a developer funded public concerns about the negatively valued transformation products of farming to render the use of farmland non-economic and ripe for development, the land becomes less expensive to purchase.

This politically-sponsored dissolution of the Separation of Powers Principle, combines all three branches of government into one, that can derive power and funding by manufacturing claims on the use of property. The more externalities are regulated, the more power accrues to the agency to control the use of the producing asset to turn its use to corrupt purpose. When agency control is sufficient to alienate the interest of the agent from the democratic majority, the asset has then degenerated into a socialized commons.

The claims by which a commons is socialized are ironically often the same precedents as were used to extend the original democratic claim; i.e., by extending claims against the transformation products of the democratic use of the resource. With the legal precedents in place that were used to take control of the factors of production on individual property, the civic agent now has the legal tools to take control of ALL related private property. Control of the use of land is now in the hands of an agency that is alienated from accountability to the public claim for healthy ecosystem function. The agency instead serves the limited interests of the politically dominant, who use the power of government to gain de facto control of ALL factors of production.

History teaches that this is not a good thing.

A socialized commons is an evil to the environment because the resource is under a controlling agent with no structural motive to prevent or eliminate ecological problems. Quite the contrary, civic management of the environment not only doesn't work, it has every reason not to work. As ecological problems worsen and resulting economic crises deepen, the power acceded to government agencies expands!

Commons are factor inputs to all economic goods. The power to socialize a commons by regulation is the power to transfer control of ALL factors of production to government.


36 posted on 01/17/2012 12:42:21 PM PST by Carry_Okie (The RNC would prefer Obama to a conservative nominee.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: xzins

If the EPA had existed when this country was founded then the entire Mississippi basin, Ohio, Indiana, Missouri and all States south of Mason Dixon line would never have been populated. Indeed the current EPA rules would have prevented any building in Washington DC. I suspect that the EPA offices in DC are currently sitting on drained swampland.


37 posted on 01/17/2012 1:15:15 PM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

All of Northwest Ohio is a drained swamp. It’s flatter than Kansas ever dreamed of being.


38 posted on 01/17/2012 1:25:12 PM PST by xzins (Newt Gingrich Cleaned Up In Last Night's Debate! Awesome Performance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: xzins

I believe most of the agricultural land in the United States is drained swampland.


39 posted on 01/17/2012 1:30:26 PM PST by P-Marlowe (NEWT!!! Because everyone else is just average.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII

did they know it was wetlands when they bought it? maybe they should have fully inspect the land they bought and checked it out better before buying. It looks like they bought a money pit.


40 posted on 01/17/2012 1:35:22 PM PST by snowstorm12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

Any idea where Alito stands on Kelo?


41 posted on 01/17/2012 1:41:16 PM PST by xzins (Newt Gingrich Cleaned Up In Last Night's Debate! Awesome Performance!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]




Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby!

All Babies Love Their Bottles

Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Sponsors will donate $10
For each new monthly sign-up

42 posted on 01/17/2012 2:04:35 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: snowstorm12

did they know it was wetlands when they bought it?

Who said it’s wetlands? The EPA, maybe, but the Sacketts contest that.


43 posted on 01/17/2012 2:35:48 PM PST by WilliamIII
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
The Great Plains, otherwise known as The Breadbasket of America, is not drained swamps, it is irrigated desert. Much of the Midwest including Ohio is not former swampland but former forest.

California's Imperial Valley, a cornucopia of agricultural plenty, is also an irrigated desert btw.

44 posted on 01/17/2012 7:19:24 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: snowstorm12
did they know it was wetlands when they bought it? maybe they should have fully inspect the land they bought and checked it out better before buying. It looks like they bought a money pit.

If I remember correctly, their lot is surrounded by other homes which had been there for years, a few houses from the lake. There was a link awhile back to an overhead of the property.

Here's a pic of them on their property. Look like wetlands to you?

Here's another view:


45 posted on 01/17/2012 7:47:52 PM PST by Aunt Polgara
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: PrairieLady2

>>It wouldn’t surprise me if the EPA continues to try to schtick the $75K/day fines under the old law, but they’ll be forced to remedy their processes which will help others in the future.

But what of the 8th Amendment?


46 posted on 01/17/2012 10:48:32 PM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII
Have had many fights with these people.

They even called "wetland" right where a house had stood for over 100 years alongside a multi acre peach farm. They're nuts!!

47 posted on 01/21/2012 12:36:16 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WilliamIII; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

48 posted on 01/24/2012 8:35:34 PM PST by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: snowstorm12
did they know it was wetlands when they bought it? maybe they should have fully inspect the land they bought and checked it out better before buying. It looks like they bought a money pit.

The Sacketts were in possession of a building permit issued by the local municipality.

But that overlooks the larger question. Why should an agency of the federal government have any authority over property located in -- and administered by -- a small town in Idaho?

49 posted on 01/24/2012 8:55:45 PM PST by okie01 (THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA: Ignorance On Parade)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson