State scheme
zeroes out value of family's land investment, Officials ban only them from selling, using – then refuse to pay
compensation, by Bob Unruh, 8/22/15
A case has developed in Wisconsin against a governmental
ruling barring a family from
using, selling or being reimbursed for a valuable lakefront property.
And it’s headed to the
U.S. Supreme Court. The case, brought by the Pacific Legal
Foundation on behalf of the Murr
family, argues there are specific situations in which the government is allowed
to obtain private property, but must pay up. In this case, the legal team
explains, the government has done the taking without paying.
Donna Murr and her
siblings, Joseph Murr, Michael Murr and Peggy Heaver are suing. “They have been
barred from developing a vacant lot they own along the St. Croix River … and a
state appellate court said they weren’t entitled to Fifth Amendment takings
compensation,” the legal firm said. Why? “Because they also own a neighboring
lot with a recreational cabin on it,” PLF said.
In short, because the
family members own a lot with a cabin, they don’t get any compensation for
newly imposed rules that forbid them from developing an adjacent lot that is
vacant.
PLF said the timeline
started in 1960, when the Murrs’ parents bought a waterfront lot on the St.
Croix and built a family cabin. Later, they bought an adjacent lot for
investment.
Then, in the mid-1970s,
new land use regulations were imposed reducing the area of land that could be
used. The land would have been grandfathered for development because it was
subdivided earlier, but the state has a rule that considers all lots under the
same ownership as one lot.
So the fact that
building now is banned on the second lot, on which the family has paid taxes
for decades, means nothing because they also own the adjacent lot and there’s a
cabin there, PLF said.
If someone else owned
the second parcel, it could be built on or sold, but the state said the
family’s ownership of both lots mean they only really have one.
“The ruling … offends
the letter and spirit of the Constitution’s ban on uncompensated takings, by
allowing government to deprive people of the use of their land simply because
they happen to own another lot next to it,” said PLF attorney John Groen.
“One of the reasons the
Supreme Court should take this case is that the Murrs aren’t alone in
confronting this issue. The problem of bureaucrats and courts defining the
parcel as a whole to include adjoining lots in common ownership presents itself
throughout the country. It arises in multiple contexts, from agricultural
operations concerning multiple separate tracts, to the typical American family
such as the Murrs.”
Donna Murr said she and
her siblings “see this case as taking a stand for constitutional property
rights, not just for ourselves, but for everyone.”
The petition to the
Supreme Court asks for the Wisconsin decision to be reversed.
“This case offers the
Supreme Court an opportunity to address one of the major recurrent issues in
property law, called the ‘relevant parcel’ question,” said Groen. “The Fifth
Amendment’s Takings Clause requires compensation when government prohibits all
economic use of private property. The Supreme Court has previously stated that
courts must consider the ‘parcel as a whole.’ The ‘relevant parcel’ question
asks: What is the whole parcel?
“In the Murrs’ case, the
government argues that the whole parcel is both of their lots,” Groen
continued. “Can government forbid the use of a separately created, legally
distinct residential lot, and get away with paying no compensation, just
because the adjoining lot is already developed and happens to be owned by the
same family? We don’t believe government should be allowed to evade the Fifth
Amendment’s Takings Clause this way. We are asking the Supreme Court to weigh
in and affirm that government can’t cut off landowners’ constitutional rights
based on how much land they own.”
The petition says: “When
Lot E was created in 1959, and purchased in 1963, it was of sufficient size,
width, and zoning to allow development of a single family house. Indeed, that
is the use allowed for all the parcels within the St. Croix subdivision.
However, because of the restrictions that came into place in 1975, the parcel
was now defined as ‘substandard.’
“Despite being defined
as substandard, Lot E would still be allowed to be developed if it was owned by
anyone other than the Murr siblings. Under the ordinance, a grandfather
clause provides that any lot created prior to January 1, 1976, as was Lot E,
may still be developed as a single family residence but only if the lot
‘is in separate ownership from abutting lands.’ Of course, the Murrs own the
abutting parcel, Lot F.
“Because the Murrs own
both parcels, this grandfather exception does not apply to them.” The petition
also states the ordinance “precludes the Murrs from selling Lot E to anyone
else unless it is combined with Lot F.”
But no damages are due
for the government’s rescission of development permission, the petition
explains, because “the Wisconsin appellate court ruled that because the two
lots are contiguous, and happen to be owned by the same people, this court’s
‘parcel as a whole’ rule … requires combing the two parcels for takings
analysis.”
Comments
Zoning ordinances since
2000 were written by consultants tasked by the federal government with
implementing UN Agenda 21 in the United States to comply with the “Wilding
Project”. This piece of sabotage is
designed to create problems with traditional property rights. The UN must first
destroy countries in order to take them over. States have passed enabling
legislation that allows municipal governments to adopt this treason.
Norb Leahy, Dunwoody GA
Tea Party Leader
No comments:
Post a Comment