- Find a Real Estate Professional
- Realtors®
- Mortgage Lenders
- Home Improvement Pros
- Other Real Estate Services
- Review an Agent, Lender or Pro
- Marketing on Zillow
- Real Estate Agent Advertising
- Join the Professional Directory
- Popular
- Real Estate Market Reports
- More
Replies (6)
- Tug of War
- Contributions:1969
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
I heard that on the public radio on Friday. Thanks for the links!
Clearly, if the government states they cannot build anything on the property when the property was sold as a "residential lot", it is a "taking", and the government is responsible for reimbursing the costs to the owner.
As to whether it is actually wet lands? The EPA hasn't actually shown up to the site yet, nor sent any representatives of any kind. They only sent the notices of potential fine in response to complaints from neighbors. (Who possibly have a house built illegally on wet-lands, but are concerned about losing a view or something else).
Since the EPA states it is only a "notice" and that the EPA took absolutely no action of any kind, it is clearly just "scare tactics" and the owner is not responsible for any fines, and doesn't actually have to stop building, even though the EPA notice stated they do. Clearly, the EPA is costing the owner over $50k per day in delays and other "costs", even though all the legal filing is being done for them for "free" by others interested in such a case.
The problem is that if the owner prevails, many people may sue the EPA for meaningless purposes, and the EPA may lose the limited abilities they have to protect the environment.
Obviously, the EPA made an error in not meeting with the property owner to discuss a workable solution, since their refusal to do so was the direct cause of a supreme court hearing that will have wide spread impacts for the entire country.
Clearly, if the government states they cannot build anything on the property when the property was sold as a "residential lot", it is a "taking", and the government is responsible for reimbursing the costs to the owner.
As to whether it is actually wet lands? The EPA hasn't actually shown up to the site yet, nor sent any representatives of any kind. They only sent the notices of potential fine in response to complaints from neighbors. (Who possibly have a house built illegally on wet-lands, but are concerned about losing a view or something else).
Since the EPA states it is only a "notice" and that the EPA took absolutely no action of any kind, it is clearly just "scare tactics" and the owner is not responsible for any fines, and doesn't actually have to stop building, even though the EPA notice stated they do. Clearly, the EPA is costing the owner over $50k per day in delays and other "costs", even though all the legal filing is being done for them for "free" by others interested in such a case.
The problem is that if the owner prevails, many people may sue the EPA for meaningless purposes, and the EPA may lose the limited abilities they have to protect the environment.
Obviously, the EPA made an error in not meeting with the property owner to discuss a workable solution, since their refusal to do so was the direct cause of a supreme court hearing that will have wide spread impacts for the entire country.
- Sharon Lewis, "Sharon Lewis"
- Contributions:3923
I would think the issue would go back to whoever issued permits....allowing the build
- Mack McCoy
- Contributions:1117
Would this matter if it wasn't their "dream house?"
I'm not going to attempt to adjudicate this, but I firmly believe in and support the right of government to zone and protect the environment.
I'm not going to attempt to adjudicate this, but I firmly believe in and support the right of government to zone and protect the environment.
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
No one has an objection to the government zoning an area as non-buildable... the objection is to the "land taking", of a property zoned for building and sold for building, and not being told until after the fact, especially after construction has already been legally started.
If the EPA wants to use eminent domain, that is their prerogative, but they cannot just take away peoples' land rights without compensation. It is very clear in the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. constitution. Case law is very clear on the subject.
Fining someone for "use of their private property" in conformance with the established zoning of the property the same amount per day as the property cost in the first place is just plain "theft", and whether it is a dream house or a squatter's shack, or a castle or a mansion or a teepee makes no difference, as long as it meet the zoning and building & safety codes.
The real question is how the supreme court will protect the owner's property rights without limiting the jurisdiction of the EPA. Fortunately, there are some good creative writers on that court, so they should come up with something interesting, and something slightly "useful".
If the EPA wants to use eminent domain, that is their prerogative, but they cannot just take away peoples' land rights without compensation. It is very clear in the 5th and 14th amendments to the U.S. constitution. Case law is very clear on the subject.
Fining someone for "use of their private property" in conformance with the established zoning of the property the same amount per day as the property cost in the first place is just plain "theft", and whether it is a dream house or a squatter's shack, or a castle or a mansion or a teepee makes no difference, as long as it meet the zoning and building & safety codes.
The real question is how the supreme court will protect the owner's property rights without limiting the jurisdiction of the EPA. Fortunately, there are some good creative writers on that court, so they should come up with something interesting, and something slightly "useful".
- Pasadenan
- Contributions:21466
And since Mac firmly believes in the right of the government to zone and protect the environment after the fact with no compensation to the property owner, let's make sure the EPA declares his house as "protected homelands for a rare rat", and takes his house, evicts him, and bulldozes it down without compensation, and then fines him $350k per day that he trespasses on his property.
Supreme Court Hears Case of 'Dream House' Stopped by EPA
"Since 2007, Mike and Chantell Sackett have been fighting to build their dream home on the Idaho lot they bought years ago. The Sacketts say they had gotten local permits and spent thousands prepping the land for construction - then the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) showed up.
The EPA told the Sacketts their property contained wetlands and issued a compliance order mandating that they return it to its original state or risk facing fines starting at $37,500 per day.
The Sacketts say they were stunned, and asked the EPA for a hearing on the matter. The agency denied their request, so the Sacketts decided to file a lawsuit. The EPA has argued that the agency is equipped to handle complaints like the Sacketts through administrative procedures, and that landowners have no constitutional right to proceed from a compliance order directly into federal court.
Mike Sackett, who terms the battle "David versus Goliath," said at the Supreme Court Monday, "Property owners have their right to their day in court, and the EPA has to be subject to the rule of law."
He says the couple's lot sits in a residential neighborhood with sewer lines and homes built all around. The EPA maintains that experts have found wetlands"
Article
Stating a discriminatory preference in an advertisement for housing is illegal. If you think this content is discriminatory or otherwise inappropriate and feel it should be removed from Zillow, please let us know by completing the information above.
We will review this content. Thanks for helping make the site more useful to everyone. To learn more, read Zillow's Good Neighbor Policy.