Supreme Court Hears Smart Growth Suit

Environmental News Service ^ | 01/08/2001

[cogitator]

Definitely a case to watch. Do some property owners have rights to a relatively scenic and unspoiled "view", rights which restrict the rights of others to develop land and potentially disturb that "view"?

[Libertarianize the GOP]

bump

[1Old Pro]

The United States has filed its own amicus brief in support of TRPA, and U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olson will deliver oral arguments before the Supreme Court.

Do I understand this correctly? Bush/Olson et al are supporting the taking of property rights?

[jdege]

Do they have a right to the view?

Absolutely, if they have purchased the land the view consists of, or have arranged an easement or other development restriction with the land's owners.

But in the absences of any claim to the property?

Absolutely not.

[cogitator]

Do I understand this correctly? Bush/Olson et al are supporting the taking of property rights?

They support the TRPA position, apparently. But this is not as clear as a ban on development, because it is a "temporary" development plan. So it would appear that the Administration is supporting the rights of communities or regions to have a development plan that cannot be over-ridden by developers in a hurry.

[cowpoke]

If I remember correctly, the TRPA is a federal creature, created by Congress. The Solicitor General is defending what is in essence a federal agency.

One has to wonder, how long is temporary?

[caisson71]

If someone (enviro-whacko) wants a "view" in, about, through, within or near my property and restrict my reasonable use of it, shouldn't they pay for it? CARA money, our taxes, MY taxes, will allow government agencies to "purchase" my property when I become a "willing seller" - unable to use my property and relieved to get some financial return for my now "worthless" property. What a deal, what a country!!

[Andrew Wiggin]

"The property rights of Lake Tahoe include the right to remain unpolluted, scenic and reasonably planned."

I didn't know that lakes had property rights. When did that happen?

Depending on the length of the temporary ban, it seems reasonable to me. That the case is still being tried would seem to indicate that the ban is far too long.

[connectthedots]

The land owners and developers will win this case 5-4 or 6-3. The USSC would not have taken a case like this unless there were at least four Justices who what to reverse the 9th Circuit.

[connectthedots]

This could put the Columbia River Gorge Commission out of business if the land owners win this case.

[anniegetyourgun]

Hhhmmm, I hadn't thought of that. Whatever happened to that case of the homeowner down there? Are the people who are enjoined from improving their property? Maybe I'm thinking of the wrong case.

[connectthedots]

The Bea family won 8-0 in the Washington Supreme Court. Talmadge wimped out and didn't participate in the ruling, mostly because he would have wanted to vote against the Beas but didn't want to risk the wrath of the property rights groups when he eventually runs for governor.

[VRWC_minion]

For me a lot would depend on the definition of temporary. If a developer purchased some land with expectations of developing it and to find the next day a temporary injunction that could last years, that would certainly be a taking. If its a few months then I wouldn't think that material.

[VRWC_minion]

Do some property owners have rights to a relatively scenic and unspoiled "view", rights which restrict the rights of others to develop land and potentially disturb that "view"?

Your question indicates you don't understand the concept of "taking".

As a land owner, I have certain rights to use my land. The consideration I paid for the land was made expecting to have those rights available to me. When those rights are taken from me then I have the right to be compensated by those who took them from me.

In applying that to yoru hypothetical, I purchase some unrestricted land with the intent to develop it. You and others use your rights to stop my developing which is ok with me but the taking of the rights to develop the land should be compensated for by the majority who took it.

[Sandy]

it is a "temporary" development plan.

"Temporary" being 21+ years. The landowners have been denied permission to build on the land since 1980.

[anniegetyourgun]

Thanks for the update on that case. You're right, BTW - Talmadge is planning on the gov's mansion....

[connectthedots]

I will certainly have my judgment by the time Talmadge runs for governor. I can assure yu that I will spare no effort to let the citizens of Washington know just how big a socialist he is and how big a threat he would be to the constitutional rights of the citizens of the State of Washington. If I will have to follow him on his campaign trail to do so, I will. Thare are many WA SC decisions which will not sit well with both property rights types nor with the ACLU types. A big problem with socialists is that once they are exposed, neither conservatives nor 'liberals' want them to be in charge of anything.

[cogitator]

As a land owner, I have certain rights to use my land. The consideration I paid for the land was made expecting to have those rights available to me. When those rights are taken from me then I have the right to be compensated by those who took them from me.

Yes, I understand that. The issue is whether a supposedly temporary moratorium on development (to allow environmental issues to be addressed) constitutes a taking.

In applying that to yoru hypothetical, I purchase some unrestricted land with the intent to develop it. You and others use your rights to stop my developing which is ok with me but the taking of the rights to develop the land should be compensated for by the majority who took it.

Correct. I think that the issue is going to be the meaning of "temporary". Another poster here said that the moratorium has been in place for about 20 years. I'd expect that to be a strong point in favor of the plaintiff.

[VRWC_minion]

Another poster here said that the moratorium has been in place for about 20 years. I'd expect that to be a strong point in favor of the plaintiff,

Your British right ?

[cogitator]

Your British right ?

I've never been accused of being British before. Why do you ask?