Posted on 04/11/2011 8:30:00 AM PDT by IbJensen
The right to own private property unfettered by excessive government control is under attack in Virginia.
Private property is a fundamental right that distinguishes us as a free people, The framers of the constitution understood the importance of protecting private property rights. The Fifth Amendment of the Bill of Rights states, “No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation.”
(Related: Agenda 21 Resource Page and also The Path To Agenda 21 Sustainable Development)
Despite constitutional protection against property confiscation, state and local governments have found a subtle way to limit private property rights: regulatory takings. Regulatory takings are an effective way for lawmakers and bureaucrats to pursue their policy goals without having to pay for them.
Such takings are often achieved through laws that restrict the right of landowners to use their property. These laws ostensibly benefit the general public though there is often disagreement as to the extent or even the existence of the benefit. These benefits must be paid for by someone, and since government officials usually possess more good intentions than they do money, they use regulatory takings to shift the expense to private property owners.
The following are examples:
Wetland Laws: A property owner is denied the use of his/her property because there may be standing water. Often the standing water isn't even on the property but adjacent to it. The courts have generally ruled that unless the loss of property approaches 100 percent, he/she is entitled to no compensation even though the property may be virtually useless for its intended purpose. The benefit of protecting wetlands may or may not be realized by the general public but the entire cost of the loss of use of the property is on the landowner.
Zoning Ordinance: A small business man purchases property and opens a coffee shop. The township zoning commission passes an ordinance that prohibits him from placing a gign on his property advertising his business. His ability to operate his business and generate a profit has been seriously harmed. Even though the value of the property is substantially diminished, he receives no compensation and is expected to bear the cost of the supposed aesthetic value realized by local citizens and visitors to the area.
Environmental Regulation: A landowner purchases two lots in a rural area. One to build his home now and one as an investment for development in 20 years to pay off his mortgage just in time for retirement. There is no public water and sewer infrastructure so he digs a well, installs a septic tank and drain field on the lot where he will live. By the time he's set to sell the other lot, there is a new regulation that prohibits a septic tank and drain field and in the absence of public infrastructure, he is unable to sell the land for development extinguishing his plan for the pay off his mortgage so he cannot retire. He must also continue to pay taxes on land that is useless to him.
While it is politically expedient to pass laws that promise benefits for the majority at the expense of individual property owners, our elected officials should be committed to protecting individual freedom by strengthening private property protections.
In the absence of leadership by elected officials, residents of a state may be forced to promote ballot initiatives so voters can decide if they want their private property protected from regulatory takings. Perhaps the only recourse is for citizens of the Commonwealth to pass a measure that stipulates that when the government imposes a restriction on the use of private property, it has to pay the landowner for the value lost as a result of that restriction. If the government chooses not to - or cannot afford to - pay the landowner, the restriction does not take effect.
Unfortunately, citizens often are not concerned about protecting private property rights until the government takes an action that affects them directly. By then, however, it may be too late. Virginia property owners should demand that their private property be protected from regulatory takings.
In the State of Florida I believe a father and son are still languishing in prison due to their draining some of their land to make it suitable for planting. In this case it was the damned federales that injected their evil regime noses in a matter that should NEVER concern them!
Wetlands!
> By the time he’s set to sell the other lot, there is a new
> regulation that prohibits a septic tank and drain field and
> in the absence of public infrastructure,
Exsqueeze me? On what planet? Uranus? This is ridiculous. I would love to see one instance in which this has happened.
It happens about twice a year in Fauquier County, Virginia.
What a crock, anytime you buy rural property, you take the chance it will not pass septic standards unless you get it pre approved, same for the bs about the business and sign, if you establish a business in an unregulated zone. Future zone changes have no force on you, it is called grandfathering, that is how you have farms inside the city limits.
You heard of the Chesapeake Bay Act....
Well sure, the land may not perk. That’s not the fault of the government. You’re supposed to get that done BEFORE you buy it.
“...I would love to see one instance in which this has happened...”
It happens regularly even here in Alabama. “Sustainability” is a code word for a directed economy (as opposed to a market economy).
There is a professor at Auburn who fought to keep his property from being claimed by bogus public domain orders and he spent mega-money for years just to keep his residence out of the government’s belly. He endured every type of threat imaginable including police visits.
“Forever Wild” is another program that sounds great for backpacker types but in reality is not good even for them because of its red tape restrictions on land use.
Yes, the whole issue is government at its worst and most evil. The SCOTUS really effed up by letting that stand.
We do have a mayor for the town that surrounds the area that is surrounded by unorganized borough. The one guy who owns most of the business here, keeps his cronies in power and since they are very conservative; guess what, nothing changes, govt doesn't grow. People like it this way too.
Of course, no services to speak of except state snowplowing and basic road maintenance, but we like it that way. In fact, whenever an entity attempts to vote in govt assistance for the good of the people, it's quickly voted down. Much of the aid is contingent on community support, they never get it.
I couldn't ever readjust to life being enslaved back east; life is too good right here, except the minus 55 come January, ha.
“...the land may not perk...”
That is not the issue at all. These “Sustainable Development” programs are being pushed in most of the states and are often backed by Republican pols but they are bad news all around.
I suggest you do some research on Earth Summit and Agenda 21. Of course the United Nations fingerprints are on this as well as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature.
I’ve read all about it.
For instance, you might have a residential area and yet next door there's unzoned farmland. Would it be acceptable for a hog farmer to move in and set up operation upwind (or even downwind) of the residents?
Remember that if the residential types sought to do something to mitigate the odor the hog farmer is going to be able to go to court to PREVENT them from doing so, and to collect damages for harming his business.
The result will be a "taking" of the residential property by the courts acting on behalf of the hog farmer ~ yet, they were there before he was.
So, what to do, what to do?!
Obviously adding more to the state planning and zoning codes (which give guidance to local planning and zoning) is required else you'll have people over there shooting pigs left and right and marching on the courthouse.
The answer is MORE ZONING, and without grandfathering.
There are, of course, a gazillion permutations on this going on at any one time and sometimes it doesn't seem any of them can be resolved without resort to the doctrines of adverse possession.
There you could claim that the homeowners had all along had free use of the flow of air over the property where the pig farmer moved in, and that'd gone on for a long time so they had a right to it ~ he, the pig farmer, owed them big time for violating their right to possess the air flowing over his property.
These things can go back and forth for years. In Illinois there was a pig farmer with a particularly foul operation, and the wind blew right across I-74. Motorists couldn't escape it and there were numerous accidents as a consequence. Ever go to court against a corn eating pig farm in Illinois? DOES NOT COMPUTE.
Eventually a law was passed raising the standards of care for the pigs and that law was then used to protect the pigs from the farmer, and he shut down his operation in that area.
Zoning seeks to take account of competing property rights and economic interests in advance of development in order to limit anti-social conflicts.
There are, alas, those who want those conflicts to occur so they can test their Castle Doctrine rights against their next door neighbors' rights to peaceably occupy their own property.
For instance, you might have a residential area and yet next door there's unzoned farmland. Would it be acceptable for a hog farmer to move in and set up operation upwind (or even downwind) of the residents?
Remember that if the residential types sought to do something to mitigate the odor the hog farmer is going to be able to go to court to PREVENT them from doing so, and to collect damages for harming his business.
The result will be a "taking" of the residential property by the courts acting on behalf of the hog farmer ~ yet, they were there before he was.
So, what to do, what to do?!
Obviously adding more to the state planning and zoning codes (which give guidance to local planning and zoning) is required else you'll have people over there shooting pigs left and right and marching on the courthouse.
The answer is MORE ZONING, and without grandfathering.
There are, of course, a gazillion permutations on this going on at any one time and sometimes it doesn't seem any of them can be resolved without resort to the doctrines of adverse possession.
There you could claim that the homeowners had all along had free use of the flow of air over the property where the pig farmer moved in, and that'd gone on for a long time so they had a right to it ~ he, the pig farmer, owed them big time for violating their right to possess the air flowing over his property.
These things can go back and forth for years. In Illinois there was a pig farmer with a particularly foul operation, and the wind blew right across I-74. Motorists couldn't escape it and there were numerous accidents as a consequence. Ever go to court against a corn eating pig farm in Illinois? DOES NOT COMPUTE.
Eventually a law was passed raising the standards of care for the pigs and that law was then used to protect the pigs from the farmer, and he shut down his operation in that area.
Zoning seeks to take account of competing property rights and economic interests in advance of development in order to limit anti-social conflicts.
There are, alas, those who want those conflicts to occur so they can test their Castle Doctrine rights against their next door neighbors' rights to peaceably occupy their own property.
Private property? What a quaint idea! Just quit paying your taxes and see how it really is. Besides, the USSC has already ruled against such a silly notion as private property rights with Kelo vs New London.
Great post. At 52 years old, I keep telling people how much freedom Americans have lost over my lifetime. They can’t see it. Here are some stirling examples. Try to cut down a tree on your property if the environmental regulatory agency tells you you can’t. You probably can’t trim an oak tree here in California. Try shooting a wolf on your property without going to jail.
We have lost so much freedom in my lifetime and half of my fellow American’s can’t see it.
And if it ‘perked’ based on the rules in effect when you bought the land in 1994, but now it does not ‘perk’, under the rules implemented in 2007, what then?
I’ve said it so many times recently, but America is beginning to resemble Madrid in 1936. The USSR’s role is being supplanted by the evil United Nations that should be served an eviction notice.
Oders and dust are common nuisances to neighbors. A guiding rule/law should be that you can have such on your own property but you cannot put such on a neighbors property to the detriment of the neighbor. It makes it tough on the source property owner especially if that owner has had years of no complaints or even nobody close by. However, times change and there are probably a few assiciated actions involved in making an otherwise good situation go bad.
Oders and dust are common nuisances to neighbors. A guiding rule/law should be that you can have such on your own property but you cannot put such on a neighbors property to the detriment of the neighbor. It makes it tough on the source property owner especially if that owner has had years of no complaints or even nobody close by. However, times change and there are probably a few assiciated actions involved in making an otherwise good situation go bad.
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.