Restrictions

Off Topic » in reply to The Supreme Court disagreed...

Restrictions

RobVG — 7/13/2004 5:55:39 PM (archived)

I live in unincorporated Snohomish county which boarders King. I bought 8 acres but could only build one house on the property because we're restricted to one dwelling per 5 acres. No biggy, I knew that when I bought it.

To apply new restictions to current land owners is definetly "taking".

And all this to protect the fragile suburban ecosystem...

(these people need a good ass-whoopin')

The whole thread (12 posts)

A bit more on property rights... - Tom Brosz - 7/9/2004 5:55:48 PM
- "Saving the eco-system" doesn't sound like a bad idea, really. - Bowser - 7/10/2004 1:07:28 PM
  - The key word is "reasonable." - Tom Brosz - 7/11/2004 8:59:35 PM
  - So, how many acres are you living on? (n/t) - Tom Brosz - 7/11/2004 1:27:25 AM
    - At any one time, two size 13 footprints. But - - - - Bowser - 7/11/2004 5:50:17 AM
- Sounds like an end-around on the 'takings clause'... - Larry J - 7/9/2004 6:06:40 PM
  - drop the public law paranoia, this is NOT a 5th amend issue here... - Publius - 7/12/2004 3:19:15 PM
    - Ideally, you are right. - Tom Brosz - 7/12/2004 7:07:40 PM
      - Some of that comes from the 'equal protection' clause of the 14th Amendment - Larry J - 7/12/2004 7:53:51 PM
    - The Supreme Court disagreed... - Larry J - 7/12/2004 6:01:17 PM
      - The Supreme Court disagreed...only thing you didn't specify..... - Publius - 7/17/2004 5:12:37 PM
      - Restrictions - RobVG - 7/13/2004 5:55:39 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Off Topic

The whole thread (12 posts)