Sam Alito strikes again...
Previously.
Quote:
In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, however,
the plaintiffs have asked for a radical redefinition of takings so elastic
that even Justice Antonin Scalia, a strong advocate of property rights
and of a broad interpretation of the takings law, rose up in protest.
“A taking of what?” he asked the petitioner’s lawyer during
oral argument before the Supreme Court last week.
His question was echoed by Justice Elena Kagan, who asked,
“Where is the taking?” and by Justice Sonia Sotomayor,
who was even blunter: “Why are we even in this case?”
|
In government "permit" situations, conditional meant:
If you do this..., your permit will be approved
If you don't do this..., your permit will not be approved.
According to Sam, not any more. Corporations rule !
NY Times
By JOHN D. ECHEVERRIA
Published: June 26, 2013
A Legal Blow to Sustainable Development
Quote:
<snip>
The court handed down a decision on Tuesday that, in the words of
Justice Elena Kagan, will “work a revolution in land-use law.”
The court’s 5-to-4 decision, with Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. writing for the majority,
arose from an order issued by a Florida water management district denying
an application by Coy A. Koontz Sr. to fill more than three acres of wetlands
in order to build a small shopping center.
The district made clear that it was willing to grant the permit if Mr. Koontz agreed
to reduce the size of the development or spend money on any of a variety
of wetlands-restoration projects designed to offset the project’s environmental effects.
Because Mr. Koontz declined to pursue any of these options, the district denied the permit.
<snip>
Before Koontz, a developer could raise a constitutional challenge if the charges were unreasonable,
but judges typically deferred to local governments in such cases.
After Koontz, developers have a potent new legal tool to challenge such charges
because now the legal burden of demonstrating their validity is on the communities themselves.
In the wake of this under-the-radar ruling, the cost of protecting a community
from a harmful building project now lies not with the developer
but with the local residents and taxpayers.
It’s hard to fathom that the framers of the Constitution would call this either fairness or justice.
|