Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Father bought 2 lots along the river, at separate times, but the courts will not let the family sell one of the lots and keep the other. While the government may be trying to limit building along the river, if they have to sell the 2 lots as a package deal, it will be to a wealthy person. Most people that can afford $800,000 for a double lot, are going to want to build a nice compound overlooking the river.

Pioneer Press Link

A divided Supreme Court struggled on Monday over a St. Croix River property rights dispute that could make it tougher for state and local governments to limit development in coastal areas.

The case involves a Wisconsin family’s effort to sell part of its land on the St. Croix, south of Hudson. The family planned to use the money from a vacant lot they own to pay for improvements on a cabin that sits on the parcel next door.

But St. Croix County officials nixed the sale for violating local conservation rules and treated the lots as a single property that can’t be split up. The family says that’s unfair and claims the government should pay what the vacant parcel is worth — up to $400,000. The government argues that when viewed as a whole, the land remains quite valuable and the family is owed nothing.

I'd side with letting the guy sell the vacant lot and not consider the two lots as one big lot. Clearly, if he had bought the lots and they were non-continuous then this wouldn't be an issue (at least I hope it wouldn't). I get that they want to limit construction on the river, but they did put the grandfather clause in back in 1976 when they changed the law to exempt existing owners. The lots have always been listed as separate lots and have been taxed that way as well, so IMO the state/county was setting the idea that these were two separate lots. It's only on the selling of the lots that they decided to call it one big lot. I think if they wanted to assume that two adjacent lots owned by the same person be considered as one big lot then they should have announced that change and given some grace period to sell off if so desired.

To me anybody ought to be able to sell any proportion of their property that they want to.

JohnStOnge wrote:To me anybody ought to be able to sell any proportion of their property that they want to.

A one sentence JSO post. Correct I might add..

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:To me anybody ought to be able to sell any proportion of their property that they want to.

A one sentence JSO post. Correct I might add..

Even a blind squirrel...

Even a broken clock...

The idea of property rights as a basic human right wasn't exactly new to the movement, but it was a basic tenet of the Enlightenment- which was a very European construct. As Western society and philosophy continues to be absorbed and displaced by more collectivist forces, property rights are going to go away. Even without competing ideologies, just our population explosion alone is going to force the issue moving forward.

The real question is whether or not Mother Earth is going to "adjust" us before we get to the point that we have our global conflict


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

BDKJMU wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:To me anybody ought to be able to sell any proportion of their property that they want to.

A one sentence JSO post. Correct I might add..

Incredible, but not correct. Are you not for zoning restrictions? Why should you be allowed to split off a 5000 sq ft lot if the minimum to build is 7000? Fracturing lots is not a good idea.

CID1990 wrote:The idea of property rights as a basic human right wasn't exactly new to the movement, but it was a basic tenet of the Enlightenment- which was a very European construct. As Western society and philosophy continues to be absorbed and displaced by more collectivist forces, property rights are going to go away. Even without competing ideologies, just our population explosion alone is going to force the issue moving forward.

The real question is whether or not Mother Earth is going to "adjust" us before we get to the point that we have our global conflict


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

"Life, liberty, and estate."

89Hen wrote:

BDKJMU wrote:
A one sentence JSO post. Correct I might add..

Incredible, but not correct. Are you not for zoning restrictions? Why should you be allowed to split off a 5000 sq ft lot if the minimum to build is 7000? Fracturing lots is not a good idea.

Agreed. There is certainly a level of zoning restrictions that make sense. I'm not for "anything goes" as the rule in most cases. Then again, I'm not a full blooded Libertarian either.

CID1990 wrote:The idea of property rights as a basic human right wasn't exactly new to the movement, but it was a basic tenet of the Enlightenment- which was a very European construct. As Western society and philosophy continues to be absorbed and displaced by more collectivist forces, property rights are going to go away. Even without competing ideologies, just our population explosion alone is going to force the issue moving forward.

The real question is whether or not Mother Earth is going to "adjust" us before we get to the point that we have our global conflict


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And why not limit development through occupancy and building size restrictions? What if the owner kept the property but built other structures similar to what a new owner would have done?

Lotsa swings and misses, and lack of context, here. I suspect 'Pops' is the real culprit, but we can't dig him up and put him on trial for creating this mess. The AP article is only piling onto it.

Bottom Line: There is no "Taking."
The Muirs 1.25 acre parcel on a square foot basis is likely valued just as the area's comparable properties. Score 1: St. Croix County.

Bottom Line #2: The 'non-conformity' of the parcel was not an issue.
Pop's use as a build-able lot was 'Grandfather'd' - for 30 years. Score 2: St. Croix County.

Bottom Line #3: Even as #2, the Muirs likely had an additional 'grace period.'
Most local ordinances provide for a minimum additional 180 days. Score 3: St. Croix County.

Bottom Line #4: Even as #2 & #3, the local 'Findings of Fact' found no basis for variance.
In other words, the County did not screw up. Score 4: St. Croix County.

AND (finally) ...

Bottom Lines #5, #6, #7 and #8: The development standards set forth in the 1970s ultimately drove the value of the property to what it was in 1996 and 2004. People love 'restricted' properties - until they don't. Pops was likely 'gifting' the property in divided interests to skirt tax laws ($10K tax-free per individual at the time IIRC). The 'Sale' was likely driven by an interest (or, 2) that wanted to cash out instead of the home renovation. Score 5, 6, 7 and 8: St. Croix County.

Final Score

St. Croix County . . . . . . . . . . . . 08
Right-Wing 'Property Rights' BS. . . 00



** The AP image is
That's 5 homes per acre - Not 1 home per 2.5 acres

Curious that the county allowed the parents to transfer the first lot to the kids in 1994 and then transfer the second lot separately in 1995.

Gil Dobie wrote:Curious that the county allowed the parents to transfer the first lot to the kids in 1994 and then transfer the second lot separately in 1995.

Forget it, Ah Oh has already decided it's a political matter and has announced victory. Stop bringing up pertinent details and facts, they only get in the way of partisan cheerleading.

kalm wrote:

CID1990 wrote:The idea of property rights as a basic human right wasn't exactly new to the movement, but it was a basic tenet of the Enlightenment- which was a very European construct. As Western society and philosophy continues to be absorbed and displaced by more collectivist forces, property rights are going to go away. Even without competing ideologies, just our population explosion alone is going to force the issue moving forward.

The real question is whether or not Mother Earth is going to "adjust" us before we get to the point that we have our global conflict


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

And why not limit development through occupancy and building size restrictions? What if the owner kept the property but built other structures similar to what a new owner would have done?

I'm a little more libertarian than that-

But I'm open to discussion on what constitutes infringing on the rights of my neighbors in that respect


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It will be affirmed either way: a 4-4 tie or 5-3 for the County if Weathervane Kennedy swings that way.

Property rights cases are tough. The last one that got notoriety was Kelo v. City of New London, the eminent domain case that Donald Trump probably loves. SCOTUS blew it on that one.