Supreme Court Gets Another One Wrong

So private ownership of land is once again not as solid a concept as we'd thought. Story.

This is a dangerous line for the government to tread. Very few things will spin people up as fast and hard as screwing with property rights.

Especially considering we all have some form of "Stand your ground".

They've been fucking up eminent domain for a long while now.

You can't own a tree, or the water, or the dirt.
And you can't fight the moonlight.

And it was the liberals on the court who made up the majority decision.

No.

No what?
"Coyote Ugly", references?
Tch, so many rules.

Here we have ROGOs. You can own the land, but with no rogo, you can not build. You can only have a "floating house", a trailer that floats on land.

It's the next fugging line, D!

"Can't fight the moonlight.

No.

You can't fight it.

No. Matter whatcha dooooo"

Sheesh. Work with me here.

My bad.

Seemed to work out fine after 1864. Notions of property rights change with the times. Or do you disagree that there are limits to property rights (and rights in general)?

I haven't fully read this particular opinion. Beyond the talking points you're regurgitating from alt.news.libtard, what is the problem of drawing a line on how small is too small to sell a parcel and what it can be used for? Isn't that entirely within the authority of state and local governments?

I'm gonna go section off four square feet off my lot and sell it as high density residential real estate.

And this square foot over here I'm going to lease as a commercial ant farm.

Too many beers tonight to be assed to look it up: did the ruling specify whether they'd be able to sell the small parcel if they sold the adjacent ones first?

No. Has to be sold as one, unless I'm misunderstanding the article.

I know they can't sell the small one without selling the big ones, but did they say if they could sell the small one if they didn't own the big ones anymore?

Usenet still exists?

Bender agrees!

As I recall, it isn't uncommon for the local tax authority to take small little chunks of someone's property in lieu of a tax payment. Good enough for thee, good enough for me.

I don't have much problem with local, state or federal governments exercising emminent domain to take someones property for something related to the public good and use for the general public.

To build a new highway for example

What I do have a major problem with is emminent domain being used to seize someones property so the government can then turn that property over to another private group that they know will pay more in taxes.

Like seizing a family's small car dealership so they can turn the property over to a large company that wants to use the land to construct a regional headquarters (something like this has happened more than once).

It's EMINENT Domain, not "imminent."

Except for your misspelling of eminent, I generally agree. There are of course extreme outliers on either end.

Except when it's on the verge of happening.