According to an
article in the Lakeland Times by Rep. Adam Jarchow and Sen. Tom Tiffany, "Wisconsin will lead a property rights revolution". The article discusses the recent Murr v Wisconsin case in which the Murr family, who purchased some land on the lower St. Croix River, were prevented from selling one parcel of that land in order to make improvements on another parcel. The state of Wisconsin fought them through the court systems all the way up to the US Supreme Court, where the liberals on the court decided in favor of the state of Wisconsin that the Murrs were not entitled to use their property as they wished, nor would they be compensated for the loss of value that resulted from the state appropriation of control of said property.
In that decision, the
four reliable liberal members of the Court, plus Justice Anthony
Kennedy held that depriving the Murr family of the use or ability to
sell an entire parcel of land did not constitute a compensable taking.
These state legislators who wrote the article are now promising to lead a property rights revolution beginning in the state of Wisconsin.
Today (July 21), we
are proud to announce we will introduce legislation we call the
Homeowners' Bill of Rights. This legislation will address a number of
issues, chief among them, will be to reel in the state and local
regulations that impacted the Murr family and others like them. Our
bills will grandfather substandard lots and prohibit the deemed merger
of lots. Our proposal will ensure property owners can repair and
maintain existing structures. It includes eminent domain and regulatory
takings reform. It will allow property owners to utilize inverse
condemnation. This legal process allows property owners to receive
compensation if a government regulation deprives the owner of a
significant use of their property. In addition, our bills contain a
number of other common-sense property rights reforms.
This all sounds very wonderful, but it was the state of Wisconsin who fought the Murr family in the first place. Do we actually need new legislation to prevent the state from abusing her constituents in the first place? Would it not be a good start for the state to just stop depriving families like the Murrs of the free use of their property BEFORE it reaches the level of the US Supreme Court? Pardon my skepticism, but I think I'll refrain from holding my breath on this lofty promise until I see some changes in behavior from state agencies that think that they have some divine right to take control of property that belongs to the individual taxpayers of the state.
