Shout Box

Who's Online
0 registered (), 17 Guests and 3 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >
Topic Options
#21201 - 06/09/06 09:35 AM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
The town of Gardiner has expressed its will that it doesn't want development along the ridge. Correct me if I'm wrong but most of the existing lots (only 9 or so along the nears) weren't really subdividable anyway -- " the geography imposes its own limits" on where to build.

Were any of these owners really individually shafted, i.e., they would have been able to subdivide under the old zoning but now can't? There were no plans in the works for a developer to buy up, say, all 9 lots and put in condos, and the town would have been within its rights to block such an action.

If possible subdivision rights were taken away some of these owners probably have standing to sue. And that's fine. They should go ahead. Maybe there's some compensation they can reap and are entitled to -- the town of Gardiner seems to think that there isn't aren't any "hardship cases" here that are worthy of compensation. They wouldn't have taken the zoning step if they weren't prepared to face the possibility of legal action and didn't think that legal action was a worthy price to pay to stop development.


Nate, as was the case in the Clove Valley, you are ill informed. If you want to know the impact of the law, study it. It goes way beyond subdivision and way beyond the limits the geography imposes. After studying the law, you might want to talk to some of the individual landowners and look at their properties to see how it impacts them. As for owners suing, with the exception of John Bradley, landowners don't have any recourse in court due to language in a US Supreme Court ruling called Lucas vs. South Carolina. But just because something is constitutional, doesn't mean it's fair or ethical or moral as was evidenced by the almost universally denounced Kelo vs. New London decision.

Clearly the ridge deserves protection. If the town and the land preservation community wanted to do that in a fair and ethical and moral way they would have rallied the community and the landowners to share the burden of protecting it. Instead the town, with the help of the land preservation community, mostly the Preserve, just took what they wanted from independent landowners because it was the cheapest thing for them to do, and because the Lucas vs South Carolina decision allowed them to do so. They effectively externalized their costs by placing the burden entirely on the peope who own the land. That some of the people siginifigantly harmed by this constitutional but immoral taking are widows, widowers, retirees, and living on fixed incomes, is an inconvenient truth.

And they took all of development rights for about 2600 acres, much of it outside of Awosting Reserve, and much of it well below the ridge. I don't know about you, but I call that more of a mountain than a mole hill.



Edited by Kent (06/09/06 02:47 PM)

Top
#21202 - 06/09/06 01:19 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Kent, it's you that are ill informed, a five minute Google query turned up some references that undeniably proved your legal opinion wrong...

The US Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision that Lucas was not entitled to compensation:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=505&invol=1003

The property was bought by the state as compensation to Lucas. They turned around and sold it to a developer(!) and now it's got a house on it. What the property looks like today:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~wfischel/lucasupdate.html


All thanks to our property-rights loving friends in the Supreme Court.

Top
#21203 - 06/09/06 02:40 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Nate, read all of the Lucas vs. South Carolina decision and parse the details. It says if the state takes 100% of the value, then they have to compensate 100% to the landowners. South Carolina took 100% of the value of the Lucas land so they had to compensate him 100%. Lucas vs. South Carolina also says, and herein lies the rub, that if they leave any economic value at all, as they have in Gardiner, then they don't have to compensate the landowners a dime.

a five minute Google query turned up some references that undeniably proved your legal opinion wrong...

Five minute Google queries might not provide you with the understanding you seem to want.

Top
#21204 - 06/09/06 03:07 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Are you a lawyer, Kent?

Top
#21205 - 06/09/06 03:23 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: pedestrian]
Kent Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/21/00
Posts: 1038
Loc: The Bayards
Fortunately no, but it would be fair to say I'm well counseled on the matter at hand.


Top
#21206 - 06/09/06 03:25 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: Kent]
d-elvis Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 04/26/00
Posts: 3650
Loc: Central PA
Supreme Court of the United States
David H. LUCAS, Petitioner,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA COASTAL COUNCIL.

No. 91-453.

Argued March 2, 1992.
Decided June 29, 1992.


Owner of beachfront property brought action alleging that application of South Carolina Beachfront Management Act to his property constituted a taking without just compensation. The Common Pleas Court of Charleston County, Larry R. Patterson, Special Judge, awarded landowner damages and appeal was taken.

The South Carolina Supreme Court, Toal, J., reversed, 304 S.C. 376, 404 S.E.2d 895.

Certiorari was granted, 112 S.Ct. 436, and the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia held that: (1) property owner's claim was ripe for review, and (2) South Carolina Supreme Court erred in applying “harmful or noxious uses” principle to decide case.
Reversed and remanded.
Justice Kennedy, filed opinion concurring in the judgment.
Justices Blackmun and Stevens filed separate dissenting opinions.
Justice Souter filed separate statement.
_________________________
"Marriage Survivor"

Top
#21207 - 06/09/06 03:49 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: d-elvis]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Ped, way to delete that post as I was responding.

Top
#21208 - 06/09/06 03:52 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
smokejumper1 Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/06/06
Posts: 75
Loc: NY, CA, Deutschland
Sounds to me like we need an expert to read into all this liar, I mean lawyer speak. I nominate DrKodos. And by the way, this thread could have ended much quicker if Glen Hoagland(AKA caca de pollo) would have just responded to my post. Me thinks he is not going to respond. Time for plan B.

Top
#21209 - 06/09/06 04:12 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
pedestrian Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 08/05/02
Posts: 2244
Loc: a heavily fortified bunker!
Quote:

Ped, way to delete that post as I was responding.




Yea well you know upon reconsideration, and all that...

One thing seems fairly clear to me, Kent apparently is holding an undeveloped single-house lot (right, Kent?) and he will probably win in an open-and-shut case if the town tries to block him from building anything.

It's less clear to me what will happen to other property owners who already have some not-very-dense development.

Wonder how long it'll take the lawyers to argue over that one.

Top
#21210 - 06/09/06 04:25 PM Re: Dear Glen Hoagland [Re: smokejumper1]
Kevin Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 11/17/99
Posts: 201
And the quoted text shows why he probably did not, would not, and will not respond...
Quote:

And by the way, this thread could have ended much quicker if Glen Hoagland(AKA caca de pollo) would have just responded to my post. Me thinks he is not going to respond. Time for plan B.




I hope that 'Plan B' means you actually discuss things without calling someone cheeky names to think you are funny... Why not send an actual letter, maybe even registered with signature required to him at the Preserve. I am sure that would earn you a little more credit in his book for a response instead of being anonymous on an internet website. Then you can call him out in a very public setting, maybe with your actual name attached, in something like the local paper, and not a climbers website.


Top
Page 4 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 >


Moderator:  webmaster 
Sponsored