What liability? I guess that’s the part I’m not getting. I understand that the State was motivated by the urge to steal, as all States are, to one degree or another. But I’m just not following the RATIONALE. How does one owner of two parcels represent LIABILITY. Not talking about reality, but the stated reasoning. Were the supremes openly upholding the right of states to make random land-grabs? Of course not. They were pretending it was something else. I don’t follow the “something else”.
If you read the actual decision instead of an inaccurate article it is all very clear.
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.