PROPERTY TAKINGS: Here are brief discussions of nine cases regarding government attempts to take your private property.
In three decisions, with the Legislature’s help, huge utilities tried to take family homes, farms, and businesses for a multi-billion-dollar power-line between the Monticello power plant and the Rockies without paying the required fair compensation. Gildea saved family farms, home owners, and tenants.
In a fourth situation, the government tried to take land without fair compensation just because the family did not discover the uncompensated "taking" for three decades. Gildea said, "if you take, you must pay."
In a fifth case, where the government took a business site, the language of the lease was crucial in allocating the government’s payment for the taken property. Gildea ruled tenants have rights, which they can waive.
A sixth case emphasized Minnesota’s protection of a family homestead, even from drug forfeitures. Gildea noted that homesteads have had special protection against all uncompensated "takings."
Two more cases laid out the way courts should define fair compensation for certain kinds of property “takings” cases. Gildea noted that Minnesota's oldest laws hold that "Private property shall not be taken without just compensation."
In a ninth case, the Supreme Court considered a problem where a government taking of two neighbors’ land for a highway led to the need for a second “taking” of a strip of a third neighbor’s land to give access by the first two neighbors to their own long driveways.
In three decisions, with the Legislature’s help, huge utilities tried to take family homes, farms, and businesses for a multi-billion-dollar power-line between the Monticello power plant and the Rockies without paying the required fair compensation. Gildea saved family farms, home owners, and tenants.
In a fourth situation, the government tried to take land without fair compensation just because the family did not discover the uncompensated "taking" for three decades. Gildea said, "if you take, you must pay."
In a fifth case, where the government took a business site, the language of the lease was crucial in allocating the government’s payment for the taken property. Gildea ruled tenants have rights, which they can waive.
A sixth case emphasized Minnesota’s protection of a family homestead, even from drug forfeitures. Gildea noted that homesteads have had special protection against all uncompensated "takings."
Two more cases laid out the way courts should define fair compensation for certain kinds of property “takings” cases. Gildea noted that Minnesota's oldest laws hold that "Private property shall not be taken without just compensation."
In a ninth case, the Supreme Court considered a problem where a government taking of two neighbors’ land for a highway led to the need for a second “taking” of a strip of a third neighbor’s land to give access by the first two neighbors to their own long driveways.
No comments:
Post a Comment