OWNERS DO HAVE PROPERTY RIGHTS
PLF statement on Koontz property
rights victory at the Supreme Court
Pacific Legal Foundation –
Paul J. Beard II – 6/25/2013
PLF PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY PAUL
J. BEARD II, WHO ARGUED ON BEHALF OF MR. KOONTZ AT THE U.S.
“Today’s ruling says the
Fifth Amendment protects landowners from government extortion, whether the
extortion is for money or any other form of property,” said PLF Principal
Attorney Paul J. Beard II.
“The ruling is a powerful
victory for everybody’s constitutional property rights, from coast to coast,”
Beard continued. “The Koontz family was challenging permit demands that were
wildly excessive and had no connection to their land use proposal. Today, the
court recognized that the Koontz family was the victim of an unconstitutional
taking. The court’s message is clear: Government can’t turn the land use
permitting process into an extortion machine.
“The ruling underscores that
homeowners and other property owners who seek permits to make reasonable use of
their property cannot be forced to surrender their rights,” Beard stated.
“Regulators can’t hold permit applicants hostage with unjustified demands for
land or other concessions — including, as in this case, unjustified demands for
money.
“The court has recognized
that money is a form of property, and the Constitution prohibits grabbing money
from property owners the same way it prohibits grabbing land without
compensation,” Beard said.
Supreme Court rulings
bolsters private property rights
On Tuesday, the Supreme
Court sent the case back to the lower court. Alito was joined in the decision
by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.
In a strongly worded
dissent, Justice Elena Kagan warned that the decision
"threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied daily
in states and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional
scrutiny."
"I would not embark on
so unwise an adventure," she said.
The Obama administration had
urged the court not to expand property owner rights in the case. The attorneys
general of California , New
York , Illinois and 17 other
states, along with the District of Columbia
and Puerto Rico , also urged the court not to
side with Koontz because expanding the so-called takings clause would lead to
increased litigation over land-use decisions.
"The risk of such
litigation will place those governments in the uncomfortable position of having
to choose between denying otherwise beneficial projects and permitting
development to proceed without mitigating its impacts," the states said.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment