LAWMAKERS 'OVERTURN' SUPREME
COURT TO DEFEND HOMEOWNERS, Make decision
allowing government to curb property rights of no effect, by Bob Unruh, 1/6/18,
WND
Wisconsin lawmakers, left aghast at
a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allowed the government to limit a family’s use
of their private land, have adopted a new law that effectively
overturns the court decision.
The Murr family went
to court when they sought to sell a vacant parcel of land originally purchased
by their parents, only to find new local
regulations adopted after the purchase meant they couldn’t sell the land
or even improve it.
It was a simple case of government
adopting after the fact new regulations and imposing them in a manner that
deprived the family of their property rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed that
was the appropriate result.
Not so with state lawmakers,
who, according
to the Heartland Institute, have set in
place a “Homeowners’ Bill of Rights,” consisting of two laws passed in November
and signed by Republican Gov. Scott Walker.
The intent, the report by H.
Sterling Burnett explains, is “to prevent local governments from limiting
property owners’ use of their lands.”
One law allows “property owners
to build on and sell lots of ‘substandard’ size if they were legal when
created.” The law also prohibits local governments from merging adjacent
lots that share the same owner without the owner’s permission and makes it
easier for property owners to get conditional-use permits and variances,
maintain nonconforming structures and dredge private ponds. The aim is to allow the owners to
use the property as it was intended when they purchased it.
The
second law lets owners “appeal assessments when a homeowner
refuses to let the assessor inside the house, and to hang the American flag
even if condominium or homeowner association rules would prohibit it.”
The Heartland report explains the
laws, sponsored by state Rep. Adam Jarchow, R-Balsam Lake, and state Sen. Tom
Tiffany, R-Hazelhurst, effectively overturned a June 2017 U.S. Supreme Court
decision.
The Murr case developed because
regulators ordered that the family’s two waterfront lots had to be treated as a
single parcel, based on local regulations adopted long after the family
had purchased the two lots. The family had intended that one lot be improved
with a cabin and used as a family retreat, and the other to be saved and sold
later.
The family discovered, however, they
had no right to sell the second parcel, which, according to rules enacted
later, was too small for development. This was despite the fact they continued to pay
a separate property
tax assessment on the second lot.
Heartland said the U.S.
Supreme Court “held local regulators could treat two neighboring
waterfront lots owned by the same family as if they were a single parcel of
property, and thus didn’t owe the property owners compensation for a taking
when they were prevented from selling or developing one of the lots because of
a change in state law.”
Chief Justice John Roberts
dissented, concluding: “Put simply, today’s decision knocks the definition of
‘private property’ loose from its foundation on stable state law rules.
The ruling compromises the Takings
Clause as a barrier between individuals and the press of the public interest.”
Rep. Jarchow explained that the
“Homeowners’ Bill of Rights” is “meant to right that wrong by ensuring when people
buy property, and they have expectations related to that property, their
property rights and expectations are not taken away because of changing rules
or regulations over time.”
The Pacific Legal Foundation
represented the family in court.
John Groen, PLF general counsel,
said: “All of us at Pacific Legal Foundation are very pleased with the
legislative progress. … Special thanks to Rep. Adam Jarchow and Sen. Tom
Tiffany for recognizing the need to restore property rights for the Murrs and
the people of Wisconsin.”
When the high court’s decision was
released, WND
reported on the beginning of
a legislative effort to effectively nullify the decision. The
stated goal was to prohibit “government from inventing ways to strip people of
the use of their property while denying them the compensation that the
Constitution requires.”
At the time, Donna Murr declared,
“What happened to my family should not happen to any American, and the Supreme
Court’s ruling must not be the final word.”
Pacific Justice said at the
time it intended to go nationwide to seek court rulings and legal changes “that will
ensure that property owners cannot be denied their constitutional rights simply
because they own adjacent property or because local land use regulations might
subsequently change.”
No comments:
Post a Comment