{"id":302,"date":"2017-06-26T10:42:40","date_gmt":"2017-06-26T14:42:40","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/conservation\/?p=302"},"modified":"2017-06-26T10:42:40","modified_gmt":"2017-06-26T14:42:40","slug":"supreme-court-upholds-land-use-limits","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/?p=302","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court Upholds Land-Use Limits"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court issued an important ruling last week on the issue of when are local environmental regulations restricting development not a taking.\n<\/p>\n<p>This issue involved a <a href=\"http:\/\/www.npr.org\/2017\/06\/24\/534177388\/environmentalists-rejoice-court-says-land-regulations-don-t-go-too-far\">Wisconsin case<\/a> over restrictions on riverfront development on a designated Wild and Scenic River.\n<\/p>\n<p>The 40-page decision was decided by a 5-3 vote. Justice Gorsuch did not participate in the case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The takings issue has been sometimes a factor in Florida zoning cases since the passage of Bert Harris Act, which laid out standards for when government regulations might go too far.\n<\/p>\n<p>Sometimes the fear of provoking a claim under the law has been used to temper local zoning actions.\n<\/p>\n<p>Perhaps this Supreme Court ruling will bring the pendulum back into balance.\n<\/p>\n<p>The core issue is when regulations constitute a government taking of private property, which the Bill of Rights of U.S. Constitution bans without proper compensation.\n<\/p>\n<p>One of the key principles is whether the regulations deprive private property owners of all beneficial use of their property or whether instead it restricts use for a proper public purpose.\n<\/p>\n<p>The court majority ruled there was no taking because the property owners retained development rights, just not as many as they wanted.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The U.S. Supreme Court issued an important ruling last week on the issue of when are local environmental regulations restricting development not a taking. This issue involved a Wisconsin case over restrictions on riverfront development on a designated Wild and Scenic River. The 40-page decision was decided by a 5-3 vote. Justice Gorsuch did not [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-302","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-gci"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=302"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":303,"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/302\/revisions\/303"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=302"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=302"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ancientislands.org\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=302"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}