Government cannot reduce the value of your property by a great deal with new regulations because due process requires government to compensate you for a “regulatory taking."
“A landowner must be compensated if his or her property sustains a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the application of an ordinance to the property.”
“TAKINGS” BY REGULATION: Here are brief discussions of sixteen cases where the government tried to restrict owners’ legal use of their land without compensation to the point that the land lost significant value.
In the first five cases, government tried to use various regulatory powers to destroy the uses of certain kinds of private property.
In the sixth and seventh cases, a state agency tried to use power it did not have to over-rule a local permit for the use of private property.
In an eighth case, a trial judge tried to change the rules in the middle of a land-use dispute.
In the ninth and tenth cases, property owners sought their rights to timely decisions in permit disputes.
In an eleventh case, opponents of a valid permit tried to raise issues that might have been considered by the local board if they had raised them in the first and succeeding proceedings.
In a twelfth case, the Supreme Court was asked to interpret the constricted language of an inflexible statute.
In the thirteenth and fourteenth cases, the Supreme Court weighed the rights of people to assert their lawful easements across other people’s land.
In a fifteenth case, the Supreme Court weighed whether an owner could be excluded from her own home for more than a year because the neighbors did not like her drinking after she had stopped all noise and police visits for more than a year.
In a sixteenth case, a divided court battled over whether a statute could be stretched in a dispute between a landlord and a person who had never lived in an apartment building.
No comments:
Post a Comment