AB 2685 - Land Use: Restriction: Just Compensation

California State Government | 3-22-02 | Assemblyman Cox

[farmfriend]

CA AB 2685

AUTHOR: Cox
TITLE: Land Use: Restriction: Just Compensation
INTRODUCED: 02/22/2002
LOCATION: Assembly Judiciary Committee

SUMMARY:
Requires that if the State or any political subdivision of the State enacts or enforces a regulation that restricts the use of private real property, and the restriction has the effect of reducing the value of a property upon which the restriction is imposed, the property owner shall be paid just compensation equal to the reduction in the fair market value of the property.

STATUS:
03/21/2002 To ASSEMBLY Committee on JUDICIARY.

[farmfriend]

Don't know if anyone wants legislation posted. Let me know one way or the other.

[farmfriend]

Anyone else need pinging? Anyone up for trying to push legislation through?

[farmfriend]

Ping.

[farmfriend]

Anyone else?

[marsh2]

All property is held subject to regulation of use to prevent substantial injury to public health, safety, peace and security. Use that is substantially injurious or dangerous to the public can be absolutely prohibited. The potentially dangerous use may be "permitted" with conditions to remove or mitigate the danger or injury. This sort of regulation is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment or the CA state clause. The Bill does not take this into consideration.

Also, the Supreme Court generally requires a clearly identifiable and measurable portion of the property to be taken, a twig from the bundle of property rights to be taken in full, or all to be taken. Past proposed federal legislation set a floor at 33%, I believe. This bill may suffer from the same problem that diminimus claims, particularly where society benefits outweigh the costs, should probably be discouraged.

[B4Ranch]

Do politicians write Bills that are designed to fail on ourpose? I think so.

[SevenDaysInMay]

Uncompensated takings for "social" benefit are a cancer killing right to private property. The twigs in the fee simple bundle of rights is so diminished that most real property is little more than a highly regulated conduit for wealth transfer to the State. Takings for power structures' prefered private business is fascism.

For example, why should homesteads be condemned for expansion of shopping malls or race tracks, except to increase sales tax and ad velorem revenues to the condeming political entity?

[Carry_Okie]

All property is held subject to regulation of use to prevent substantial injury to public health, safety, peace and security. Use that is substantially injurious or dangerous to the public can be absolutely prohibited. ... This sort of regulation is not compensable under the Fifth Amendment...

And we all know that the subjective attribution of "harm" is the nub of that theory. "Thou shalt not harm my viewshed." It is what converts the power to regulate into the power to take property. Once the state has that power, it can then socialize all property. It is my opinion that the SCOTUS is waiting for a legal theory to test that premise. I think I've got it. We'll see if they have the balls to use it.

Also, the Supreme Court generally requires a clearly identifiable and measurable portion of the property to be taken, a twig from the bundle of property rights to be taken in full, or all to be taken.

Got that too.

[SierraWasp]

If you can't control something by owning it... why bother going through the hassel of acquiring ownership?

A bundle of STICKS is definition #1 in my Webster's New World Dictionary (College Edition) for the word "fagot!"

Legal minds seem determined to contort themselves into pretzels to rationalize away founding principles and CHEESE UP (like "Cheese" on FR) both the CA & US Constitutions that they take an oath to "protect and defend" when they become politicians.

I like the author of this legislation very much, even though he is a "moderate" that is more than moderately ambitious to continue his advancement into a leadership position in the Repellican Party and in the Legislature. I particularly like him since he's not a lawyer, that I know of.

This bill, however, just like the CA Constitution (if you read article 1, section 1) sounds very "property rights" oriented. Even much more so than the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution! However, it will, like any inconvenient constitutional prohibition, be simply ignored in our quest for "GOVERNMENT BY GELDING WHIM!"

Sorry, I'm finally too jaded and cynical to get aroused by it, PERIOD!

[Free the USA]

Check the Bump List folders for articles related to and descriptions of the above topic(s) or for other topics of interest.

[marsh2]

Here is another step toward your "viewshed" definition of harm. If some one derives scientific, aesthetic, or spiritual benefits from a species continued existence, they have standing under ESA.

A desire to use, observe, and study the stated plan and animal species is undeniabley a cognizable interest for the purposes of standing.

One must qualify as an injured party or potential injured party to qualify for "standing."

[Carry_Okie]

Here is another step toward your "viewshed" definition of harm.

This comment is really disturbing to me. It goes against everything I stand for. It shows no understanding of what I have said. Do you really think that this kind of taking corresponds to anything I propose? No fuzzy answers please.

I consider viewshed a marketable product that has been rendered economically valueless by civic takings. Without investment in that product it deteriorates for lack of care. Civic management misallocates capital and destroys the asset because it is operated by an entity with no motive to succeed. If you aren't sure what I did say, it is in the first chapter of the book.

[farmfriend]

Just bumping my thread.