To fight eminent domain nuns build chapel in the middle of the pipeline path. Freedom of religion v. eminent domain.

Nuns gone wild. Nuns in Pennsylvania own a corn field that sits in the path of a pipeline. Nuns oppose the pipeline’s path through their property, and to combat it the nuns built a chapel.

The nuns, the Adorers of the Blood of Christ, believe that the earth is sacred.

Sets up a fight between the 1st amendmnt freedom of religion argument the nuns espouse and the 5th amendment takings provisions that permits eminent domain.The legal grudgematch begins July 17, 2017.

Upworthy | These nuns built a lovely little chapel. Right in the way of a pipeline. On purpose.

Legal Trend. Is the Land Owner Bill of Rights Mandatory? In this state, cities say no.

In Georgia, cities are arguing before the Georgia Supreme Court that the 2006 Land Owner Bill of Rights is not mandatory and there is no enforcement mechanism. 

Landowners in Marietta say that the Land Owners Bill of Rights is mandatory.

Background of the eminent domain dispute:

  • City offers $85,000 to build a park.
  • Court awards $225,000 for the only black grocery store in a historically black district. 
  • Court said the city violated the Land Owner Bill of Rights by not acting transparently when it kept appraisals from the land owner.
  • The City attorneys argue that since the Land Owner Bill of rights has no enforcement mechanism, a line of case law says the law isn’t mandatory but rather discretionary.

Atlanta Journal Constitution | Landowner’s Bill of Rights tested at Georgia Supreme Court

Private Property Rights. Drone Law Requires Local Control Be Included. 5 Bits informed:intel.

Federal drone legislation seeks to provide this broad framework:

  •  secretary of transportation would develop “civil unmanned aircraft policy framework”
  • harmonize time, place and manner from drone use

In addition to broad federal framework, it requires flexibility for local ordinances concerning:

  • more control over protecting residents’ privacy & property rights
  • create low-altitude speed limits
  • establish local no-drone zones

Drone Innovation Act | Rep. Jason Lewis (R-MN)

Morning Consult | Lawmakers Look to Boost Local Control Over Drone Regulation

Lege TREND. State Constitution Limits Eminent Domain Against Businesses.

State: Louisiana

The eminent domain issue: A private dock entity, Violet Dock Port, had been operating in St. Bernardship parish. The Port Authority wanted to acquire its private competitor. Violet and the Port couldn’t agree on a price, so the Port Authority used eminent domain & began operating the Dock Port.

The Louisiana Constitution says: “no business enterprise or any of its assets shall be taken for the purpose of operating that enterprise or halting competition with a government enterprise.”

The Louisiana Supreme Court will have the final say. The lower courts have approved the use of eminent domain. NFIB and CATO point to the Lousiana Constitution business language limiting eminent domain in this instance in their pleadings before the LA Supreme Court.

CATO | Government Businesses Can’t Simply Take Over Property They’ve Been Unable to Buy

Lege Trend. What happens when counties have input into infrastructure projects that use eminent domain?

In Missouri, the Missouri Supreme Court upheld an appellate ruling that effectively stopped a transmission line plan.

How could the court do this?  In Missouri to build a transmission line, the state agency must have input from the counties. Why? Because state law says counties must determine whether a proposed project meets engineering & safety guidelines.

6 of the 8 counties said no to the transmission project. The project backers had asked the MO Supreme Court to not require the county approval.

What did property rights opponents say of the MO Supreme Court move? Incredible victory for property rights.

In Texas, this is a road map for counties opposed to high speed rail.

Columbia Daily Tribune | Missouri Supreme Court kills transmission line plan

US Supreme Court Authors 2017 Kelo Say Property Rights Supporters. 3 Key Points about Murr v. Wisconsin

The U.S. Supreme Court sided with Wisconsin in a property rights case last week. Property irghts activists are hanging their hats on the liberal majority in this opinion.

Murr’s property right sissue isn’t as clear cut as Kelo’s- should the house be taken. Murr owned multiple parcels of land and wanted to sell one parcel to build a cabin.

Standing in the way of the Murr’s cabin dream is a Wisconsin law that barred the sale because conservation rules treat the two lots as a single property that can’t be divided.

What did the court rely on to side with Wisconsin: that a land use regulation must be reasonable and Wisconsin was reasonably protecting the lands along the river. Plus, the land use rules existed before you bought the land- buyer beware.

PBS News Hour | Justices side with government in property rights case

Washington Post | Volokh Conspiracy | A loss for property rights in Murr v. Wisconsin [updated with a link to my response to Prof. Rick Hills]

 

 

Legal Trend. Private Property Rights vs. First Amendment to Murals vs. City Ordinances

City: Atlanta

Ordinance: 1982 Ordinance required:

  • registration of public art
  • approvals by multiple layers of city government  for public art
  • defined public art as  any artwork “able to be viewed from a public way.”

Court: City agreed to stop enforcement of a 1982 ordinance and pay $500 in restitution to the property owner and the mural artist. Attorney fees and costs are still being negotiated.

Atlanta Daily Report | City Agrees to Halt Enforcement of Ordinance That Threatened Artwork