Professor Takes Stance that State Government can Decide Property Rights of Private Owners

Accuracy in Academia ^ | March 24, 2017 | Malcolm A. Kline

[Academiadotorg]

If there is an indefensible position on property rights, count on an academic to take it.

On March 20 the Supreme Court began to hear oral arguments in Murr v. Wisconsin, a property rights case it agreed to take up in January 2016. The Cato Institute previewed the case on St. Patrick's Day.

"Joseph Murr and his siblings own two side-by-side lakeside lots, one with a recreational cabin and the other left vacant as an investment," the Cato Institute release noted. "Due to land-use restrictions, they allege that Wisconsin has 'taken' the vacant lot, which would require the state to pay just compensation under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause."

"Wisconsin courts rejected this claim by considering the economic use of the two lots combined. The Murr case thus asks how courts should define the 'relevant parcel' of land when evaluating regulatory takings. Cato filed a brief in this case, arguing that current regulatory-takings jurisprudence is unclear and puts a thumb on the scale for the government. Another amicus brief, filed by Nevada and eight other states and co-authored by Ilya Somin, argues that the Wisconsin court's rule ‘creates significant perverse incentives for both landowners and regulators.'"

Somin did indeed make that point at Cato on Friday. Michael Pappas, an associate professor at the University of Maryland law school, made the counterargument that, well, the state of Wisconsin is the final arbiter of such a claim. "The Constitution has no free standing rule on property so courts look to the state," he said.

[Academiadotorg]

Don't look to the Ivory Tower when you're property rights are threatened.

[rjsimmon]

"The Constitution has no free standing rule on property so courts look to the state,"

Prof. Pappas is a moron. The Constitution does not NEED to do so, the 9th and 10th Amendments specifically state that the gov has no business in the matter and it is already reserved to the people. The founders ALL owned property and did not want the gov to get into their knickers.

[rlmorel]

What an idiot. I am sure that will be all fine and dandy until someone decides HIS property needs to be taken by the State.

[jsanders2001]

So the professor without entertaining one critical thought says the question has already been answered and will always have the same answer - all your base belongs to us....the government is never satisfied as long as evil men are in power...

[jcon40]

Scary to imagine what California would do if allowed

[KrisKrinkle]

In what way is the professor wrong? What am I missing here? (The “journalism” offered is that great.)

[GreyHoundSailor]

I’m aware of a similar issue about 10 miles from us; property has been in the family for over 100 years and the town changed the zoning from ‘residential’ to ‘wetlands’ a few years ago. They now own and pay taxes on a piece of property they can’t build on. Appraisal value has not taken into consideration the reduced value of the property due to change in zoning.
Courts have ruled “in limited circumstances, a government regulation of private property may result in a taking even though the government has not directly appropriated nor physically invaded the property.”