-Caveat Lector- WJPBR Email News List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Peace at any cost is a Prelude to War! Supreme Court Weighs Rights of Landowners Tuesday, February 27, 2001 E-mail This Story WASHINGTON -- In a case that could have broad implications for environmental and regulatory policies, lawyers argued before the Supreme Court Monday about whether governments are unconstitutionally "taking" someone's property when they pass regulations that effectively lower its value. Lawyers for Rhode Island plaintiff Anthony Palazzolo argued that the state, which has for 20 years prevented him from developing a pond-side plot of land because it is protected wetlands, should pay the retired auto wrecker because its value is diminished by the regulation. "Declaring something an environmental issue is a way for the government to effectively deprive the owner the use of the property without paying the price for it," said R.S. Radford, an attorney for the Pacific Legal Foundation, a property rights law firm representing Palazzolo in the case. "The outcome of this case could have broad implications for the protection of our coastal ecology and our nation's environment in general," said Rhode Island Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse, who argued the state's case before the high court. Whitehouse argued that Palazzolo was not, in fact, totally deprived of his property. "There is value in this property," he said, because a home could be built on the higher-ground area of the land. If Palazzolo prevails, governments could be forced to rethink the way they issue regulations that impact the value of private property, including monumental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and clean air and water rules. Palazzolo bought the land in 1959 as an investment, intending to develop it piecemeal over the years. The 18-acre parcel was zoned for residences or a beach club and Palazzolo planned to fill in the marshy lots and sell them to make some money on the side. "I'm not a developer," the 80-year-old Palazzolo said. "All I wanted to do was improve my land and sell the lots occasionally as I went along." A series of environmental restrictions enacted in 1971 and 1977 made his plans impossible, though. He later sued the state for $3.15 million in lost value. His attorneys argued that the government in essence "took" the land from him by blocking his proposals, violating the Fifth Amendment clause that states if a government takes a person's property, it must pay just compensation. "If we look at the history of environmental regulations in this country, especially in the last 10 or 12 years, it has been proceeding on the assumption that the government can deprive owners of the rights of their property at the stroke of a pen," Radford said. The case is being closely watched by organizations on both sides of the property-rights debate. Among those supporting Palazzo are Defenders of Property Rights, the National Association of Home Builders and the American Farm Bureau Federation. Supporters of Rhode Island include the National Wildlife Federation, the National Conference of State Legislatures and 18 states. — The Associated Press contributed to this report. *COPYRIGHT NOTICE** In accordance with Title 17 U. S. C. Section 107, any copyrighted work in this message is distributed under fair use without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for nonprofit research and educational purposes only.[Ref. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml ] Want to be on our lists? Write at [EMAIL PROTECTED] for a menu of our lists! <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
