• Please be sure to read the rules and adhere to them. Some banned members have complained that they are not spammers. But they spammed us. Some even tried to redirect our members to other forums. Duh. Be smart. Read the rules and adhere to them and we will all get along just fine. Cheers. :beer: Link to the rules: https://www.forumsforums.com/threads/forum-rules-info.2974/

Eminent Domain

C

Chief

New member
I came across this Oped about eminent domain in the Wallstreet Journal. I realize the eminent domain issue is probably an issue near and dear to most if not all here as most if not all are land owners. I had no idea that ownership rights and state/local government controls were so strict on the left coast. I have had land siezed twice via eminent domain. :soapbox: I have involved myself politically to change eminent domain laws and hope it will be that last time land is taken from me. It would be interesting to hear how eminent domain issues have effected others.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/cc/?id=110007682
 
Chief,

immediately after the state voted for it., many towns up here have enacted laws to forbid this type of behavior at the local level..

Something that is more controversal around here right now is what to do with the results of Measure 37. Which is a measure which says that if a rezoning happened on family land, that caused the land to lose market value, the family/owner is allowed to go after the local zoning government for lost market value if the zoning officials do not wish to rezone the property back where it was when the family/owner first took position of the land.

I can see both sides of it. That is a tough one if you consider that people have bought land out in the country because the zoning was such that they knew that they and their neighbor could not convert their land into an urban area (sub division) allow for it to remain rural because of the zoning in place in the area. If everyone was zoned let say 10 acres minimum, is it fair that one person in this zoning all of the sudden becomes exempt from zoning because their family had purchased their land before it was zoned in that manner?
 
OregonAlex said:
Chief,

immediately after the state voted for it., many towns up here have enacted laws to forbid this type of behavior at the local level..

Something that is more controversal around here right now is what to do with the results of Measure 37. Which is a measure which says that if a rezoning happened on family land, that caused the land to lose market value, the family/owner is allowed to go after the local zoning government for lost market value if the zoning officials do not wish to rezone the property back where it was when the family/owner first took position of the land.

I can see both sides of it. That is a tough one if you consider that people have bought land out in the country because the zoning was such that they knew that they and their neighbor could not convert their land into an urban area (sub division) allow for it to remain rural because of the zoning in place in the area. If everyone was zoned let say 10 acres minimum, is it fair that one person in this zoning all of the sudden becomes exempt from zoning because their family had purchased their land before it was zoned in that manner?
Click to expand...

I don't see it in those terms. If the family owned the land prior to the enactment of the zoning; the law requires the owners to be grandfathered in or compensated for the taking of development rights lost due to the zoning. Our constitutions expose facto provision and 5th amendment address that at the most basic level although it seems to be ignored. Deeded restrictions are a totally different issue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top