Skip to comments.
Supreme Court rule for Florida property owner in land use case
Reuters ^
| Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley
Posted on 06/25/2013 10:39:18 AM PDT by fifedom
the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said a Florida property owner may be owed compensation from a government agency that declined to award him a development permit for his land.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
TOPICS: Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: extortion; fees; teaparty; zoning
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
Finally a piece of good news. A water agency in Florida wanted to extort a fee from a property owner to use his land. They were going to use the money for a purpose unrelated to the parcel of land. The scary part is that this was another 5-4 vote. Pray every night for the health of Justices Thomas, Alito, Scalia, Roberts, and Kennedy.
1
posted on
06/25/2013 10:39:18 AM PDT
by
fifedom
To: fifedom
2
posted on
06/25/2013 10:43:28 AM PDT
by
schm0e
("we are in the midst of a coup.")
To: fifedom
[Justice] Kagan said the majority "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."
3
posted on
06/25/2013 10:44:48 AM PDT
by
1rudeboy
To: 1rudeboy
"threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure." I bet you wouldn't, ho. Note how trouble and anguish imposed upon inanimate regulations is considered a drawback, but burying real people (the ones with jobs, not the governmental parasites) under mountains of regulation isn't problematic.
4
posted on
06/25/2013 10:52:21 AM PDT
by
Still Thinking
(Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
To: schm0e
this is news.Considering the ongoing attack on property rights by the EPA; Yes!, this is news.
To: 1rudeboy
Kagan should not be on ANY court.
6
posted on
06/25/2013 10:54:12 AM PDT
by
Ray76
(Do you reject Obama? And all his works? And all his empty promises?)
To: fifedom
This ruling is good news.
California agencies routinely require cell phone companies to make neighborhood improvements in exchange for tower permits, so they stand to get hit...and phone companies have deep pockets to make those hits.
Some permits departments nationwide require home Builders to develop off-site low-income units in exchange for permits, too.
7
posted on
06/25/2013 10:56:02 AM PDT
by
Southack
(Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: fifedom
8
posted on
06/25/2013 10:58:39 AM PDT
by
skinkinthegrass
(who'll take tomorrow,$pend it all today;who can take your income & tax it all away..0'Blowfly can :k)
To: 1rudeboy
[Justice] Kagan said the majority "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."
What is she so afraid of? I mean the vast array of land-use that she speaks of is all constitutional? right?
9
posted on
06/25/2013 10:59:23 AM PDT
by
BJ1
To: Southack
sounds like extortion - if you wanna do something, ya gotta do something fer me, first!
glad it was overturned...this could end up being VERY good for peaceful landowners
10
posted on
06/25/2013 11:00:11 AM PDT
by
camle
(keep an open mind and someone will fill it full of something for you)
To: 1rudeboy
[Justice] Kagan said the majority "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure." Justice Kagan moronically presumes that "no use" is good for the land and that the almighty bureaucracy is serious about environmental productivity. Neither is true.
11
posted on
06/25/2013 11:02:10 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(The environment is too complex and too important to be managed by central planning.)
To: 1rudeboy
[Justice] Kagan said the majority "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."
Heaven forbid regulators should ever suffer constitutional scrutiny!
To: fifedom
It appears as though SCOTUS is in damage control mode over their 0bamacare decision.
To: 1rudeboy
Oh, how could we... subject a fast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny?
Good God, the horror of applying the CONSTITUTION!
Somebody.. something.. take those creatures back to where they came from.
14
posted on
06/25/2013 11:34:58 AM PDT
by
ScottinVA
( Liberal is to patriotism as Kermit Gosnell is to neonatal care.)
To: Still Thinking
Certainly we can’t fathom troubling the poor little statist bureaucrats to actually defend their regulatory monstrosities, now can we??!?
Oh...the horror!
15
posted on
06/25/2013 11:54:45 AM PDT
by
bamahead
(Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
To: Ray76
Kagan is unqualified to have been in law school. She is example number one for what is wrong with quotas.
16
posted on
06/25/2013 11:55:41 AM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: BJ1
Kagan is afraid that redistribution of money via permit extortion will end.
17
posted on
06/25/2013 11:57:17 AM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: 1rudeboy
Kagen , from Harvard and the far left kook wing to the SCOTUS, you can’t even make it up.
All this is , is a plant in the court to let Obama know what is going on
18
posted on
06/25/2013 12:04:24 PM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: CivilWarBrewing
we have DOMA coming up and if the court goes against us then tens of millions of votes and voters will be thrown away and states rights have gone.
Maybe they are getting ready to allow sham homosexual marriage
19
posted on
06/25/2013 12:05:57 PM PDT
by
manc
(Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
To: 1rudeboy
Kagan said the majority "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an adventure."Kagan needs to put aside her copy of Agenda 21 and try reading the US Constitution for once.
20
posted on
06/25/2013 12:08:44 PM PDT
by
SilverMine
(ever member of congress should be horse whipped)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-29 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson