A Well Regulated Militia Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply
my profile | directory login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» A Well Regulated Militia » General Discussion » Constitutional Discussion » Surpreme Court Hears Murr v. Wisconsin Today

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!    
Author Topic: Surpreme Court Hears Murr v. Wisconsin Today
airforce
Administrator Officer Contributor

Member # 523

Icon 1 posted      Profile for airforce     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is a property rights case you've never head about, but a lot of people - and States - are beginning to realize just how important this might be.

The Murr family owns two adjacent plots of land along the St. Croix River, and wants to sell one of them (with a value of $400,000) to pay for maintenance on the cabin that sits on the other parcel. But the county government, under a 1975 state law, prohibited the family from selling the second parcel, effectively merging the two parcels of land into one, and devaluing the parcel by as much as 90%.

The question: Should the government be required to pay compensation to the Murr family?

If the government can merge two parcels of land into one, it creates several potential problems for local, state, and federal government.

quote:
1. If property owners know that contiguous parcels can be merged together by governments, without compensation, they will have an incentive to NOT get common ownership. That creates other problems with efficiency, as property owners find ways to get around it, such as by creating other parties for a transaction purely to avoid legal problems.

2. It would make it harder to collect parcels of land for a large building project, either public or private.

3. States will have incentives to redefine parcels to avoid liabilities under the constitution's takings clause, and regulators will be able to undermine property values without having to worry about paying compensation.

4. Many state governments own contiguous lots and large bodies of water near areas owned by the federal government (military bases, national parks, etc). Takings rules apply to land taken by the federal government from state government, but if you can say contiguous lots are merged, then the federal government would be able to impose severe restrictions on state land and wouldn't have to pay consequences.

The last point is the one that concerns western states the most. Normally, the federal government compensates the states for the loss of access to their land. They may not have to do that. And that should concern all of us.

Onward and upward,
airforce

Posts: 16278 | From: Tulsa | Registered: Jan 2002  | Report this post to a Moderator
   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  New Poll  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | A Well Regulated Militia

All information posted on this site is the private property
of the individual who posted the information and AWRM.org,
and may not be reproduced anywhere without permission.
© 2001-2016 AWRM.org All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2