Posted on 06/23/2017 2:20:20 PM PDT by Sopater
The LIABILITY comes from the lawsuit filed by the Murr’s against the state and county.
Those regulations effectively gutted the value of the Murrs’ property. The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it. When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000.
The Murrs filed a lawsuit against the state and county, arguing that they should be compensated for the lost value of the property, arguing the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees governments must compensate property owners when land is seized or otherwise made un-useful for public purposes.
So to try and avoid the lawsuit or large payouts, the government said they could sell both the properties, not just one.
The republicans are such willing accomplices.
“The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it.”
One of the many fake facts in the article.
Elect no more female SCOTUS judges. They do not think.
Wait a few decades before more female judges.
A 50/50 female male SCOTUS would be devastating.
Women socialize thought, sadly.
Disappointed that you post an article full of errors instead of posting the actual decision...
I believe the reason Gorsuch did not participate is because he was not on the court yet when the issue was argued before the court by each side.
It is an exception that the plaintiff is forced to take a lower price than market. My job at one time included evaluation of the cost of “making someone whole.”
Most often this would include such costs as providing a renter with suitable housing if they were forced to move.
This meant providing the tenant with comparable housing. But the standard was “suitable” housing which meant that the house/apt into which they moved had to meet minimum federal standards of suitable.
Hence, a family of 6 in a two bedroom house would move into
a 5 or 6 room house since children could not share a bedroom.
There are other ripoffs of the government. About 50 yrs ago I was urban renewed out in Chicago and got 3 grand for my trouble. Since I was a college student at the time it probably cost me two hundred dollars, if the robbery of the last night there, is not counted.
Too bad the subject in this suit did not sell when the price was alleged to be 400,000. It would also be interesting to know what value the country was using to calculate the taxes paid at the last payment. Are they going to reduce the taxes to those applicable to 40gs?
Many of these cases along the waters become subject to the Clean Water Act and its discharge permit requirements which often means a septic field cannot be used so the area must be sewered. This is terribly expensive since generally few hook-ups per mile of sewer means the owners get hit with hook-up fees in the thousands of dollars.
Because it was never appraised at $400know...
Actually, it all started with the feds ...
So how much was it appraised for?
The knew the restrictions when they got it.
“right to subdivide.”
Most every municipality puts restrictions on sub-dividing.
Actually, the same restrictions the are fighting made their other lot more valuable. These people want it both ways.
$40,000.
“Considering the valuation of the property as a single lot versus two
separate lots, the court found the market value of the
property was not significantly affected by the regulations
because the decrease in value was less than 10 percent.”
Those regulations effectively gutted the value of the Murrs’ property. The property was appraised at $400,000 before the Murrs tried to sell it. When the family came to the county, now the only eligible buyer, the county offered $40,000.
The property was appraised at $400,000 before it was discovered that because of regs put in place 20 years after they bought the two lots, the only legal buyer, the county, offered them only $40,000, take it or leave it.
So dropping the worth of one lot from $400,000 to $40,000 isn’t a taking.
And the market value they’re talking about is after devaluation due to the ‘new’ rules.
“The property was appraised at $400,000 before it was discovered that because of regs put in place 20 years after they bought the two lots, “
It was appraised at $40k, not $400k. The regs were put in place AFTER they obtained the lots.
“So dropping the worth of one lot from $400,000 to $40,000 isn’t a taking.”
It was never worth $400,000.
“And the market value they’re talking about is after devaluation due to the ‘new’ rules.”
The ‘new’ rules were put in place over 30 years ago! Besides, the ‘new’ rules probably increased the value of the improved lot and the value of the two lots considered together.
“So dropping the worth of one lot from $400,000 to $40,000 isn’t a taking.”
They can sell the two similar lots together for almost $700k. The building is almost worthless.
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.