Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Court to decide on Building Ban
Orange County Register ^ | 1/8/02 | By MARK HELM Hearst Newspapers

Posted on 01/08/2002 8:45:17 PM PST by passionfruit

Edited on 04/14/2004 10:04:57 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

WASHINGTON -- In a case that could curb environmental regulation, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday weighed whether the federal government must compensate hundreds of land owners in Lake Tahoe, Nev., who have waited decades for approval to build lakeside homes.


(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: michaeldobbs
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, representing the federal government, defended the lack of compensation.

I love Ted Olson, and I hurt thinking about the loss of his lovely wife Barbara, but he came down on the wrong side of this issue.. I hope the views of Sandra DaO'Conner win the day.

1 posted on 01/08/2002 8:45:17 PM PST by passionfruit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: passionfruit;*landgrab
Bump List
2 posted on 01/08/2002 8:50:56 PM PST by Fish out of Water
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: passionfruit
"Every time a property owner applied for a building permit or every time a city enacted a zoning law, landowners would have to be compensated; ... it's just not workable," he said."

Mr. Olson is either incompetent or he deliberately made a false analogy.

Building permits and zoning laws aren't Federal cases, the situation in Tahoe is. The United States Congress passed these 'regulations', so that puts this case squarely in SCOTUS perview.

Perhaps Mr. Olson is being clever, and deliberately arguing a position he knows SCOTUS will reject.

Hey, I can hope can't I?

L

3 posted on 01/08/2002 9:03:08 PM PST by Lurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: passionfruit
Solicitor General Theodore Olson, representing the federal government, defended the lack of compensation. Granting compensation for temporary bans would put an "unbearable" burden on the government, he said.

It is an unbearable burden that the government has placed on citizens. They strip their rights of the land then say deal with it without offering one dime in compensation. If environmentalists and people in authority are going to continue to do this without compensation you might as well toss the 5th Amendment out of the Constitution. Heck who cares about the Bill of Rights, it is just a nice idea right? (gag)

4 posted on 01/08/2002 10:23:43 PM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2nd_Amendment_Defender
I agree with you 100%. The burdon placed on the private citizen by the government is unbearable. I'm watching this case closely. I'll post the decision when it comes.
5 posted on 01/09/2002 12:17:32 PM PST by passionfruit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson