GMan 3,569 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Brother, you're smart. So I know you understand the concept of private property. It doesn't matter if they want to plant silos upside down on their property. It doesn't matter if they want to stack port-a-potties on it 200 feet high. IT'S THEIR PROPERTY! Not yours. Not mine. Not the Board of Supervisors'. Private. Property. And what the Board of Supervisors did was a spit in the face to individual property rights. Not to mention unconstitutional, but I don't see you addressing either of these points. This aside from the fact that the mountaintop property isn't worth jack in the first place. It just looks pretty. As MRB said above, there's almost NO economic value from it. It's a stinking jagged rock-face with trees. Know anything about zoning codes???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Know anything about zoning codes???? Oh, you mean the "zoning codes" that were whipped up out of cow manure and smoke on Tuesday night? Know anything about substantive and procedural due process? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hacker 82 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 Oh, you mean the "zoning codes" that were whipped up out of cow manure and smoke on Tuesday night?Know anything about substantive and procedural due process? The classic standard argument against land use ordinances, i.e. zoning, stormwater protection, signs are that they are a taking on someone's property without due process. suspect that this tired old horse will be dragged out again in this case as well. I am calling it a tired old horse because it has been used so many times, with limited success over the years. My guess is that is what the local property owners who are affected by the ordinance will argue in court; with strong support from BP. I do suspect that BP will go the political route in the General Assembly. They might even seek a statutory exemption from local land use for this kind of project. This project is now a great economic development project.... for the lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deleted Account 5,203 Report Share Posted February 5, 2010 The classic standard argument against land use ordinances, i.e. zoning, stormwater protection, signs are that they are a taking on someone's property without due process. suspect that this tired old horse will be dragged out again in this case as well. I am calling it a tired old horse because it has been used so many times, with limited success over the years. My guess is that is what the local property owners who are affected by the ordinance will argue in court; with strong support from BP. I do suspect that BP will go the political route in the General Assembly. They might even seek a statutory exemption from local land use for this kind of project. This project is now a great economic development project.... for the lawyers, consultants, and lobbyists. Indeed it's a tired old horse, and success has been mixed. But you hit the nail on the head. I'd like to see the federal court in Abingdon weigh in on this, though. Even if the landowners lose, BP would probably fund an appeal of a negative ruling to the 4th Circuit. I'm looking forward to seeing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gym 10 Report Share Posted February 6, 2010 Glad it didn't go through Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.01bb665814ffc257795fe158cb2045c7.png.8a531ac878a82772b21014d7a6167582.png){kind=logo}
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.