Supreme Court limits rights of property owners

I read the article, but not the decision itself, so I can't speak to the actual thought process behind it.

That said, I'm amused at how many people immediately assume it's the fault of the 'others' on the panel, when it very well could be their own side in agreement. "Obviously the liberals" or "got to be the conservatives"... I'd bet money, were I a gambler, theses people have read just as much as I have, and are leaping to conclusions with enough grace to make an Olympian blush.

Rights of property owners have always had some measure of government control.....your land is zoned for one thing or another, and that generally works to your benefit. If you live on a city lot, you sure don't want your next door neighbor raising pigs on the lot next to yours. If you live in the country, in an agricultural area, you don't want someone building high rise apartments next door. That said......after reading the details of this case, it seems to me the family involved got the short end of the stick on this one. I don't see why an owner can't sell off a portion of his property, as long as it's not to be used in an inappropriate way, such as for commercial purposes in a residential area, or vice verse. This decision seems wrong headed to me.

It's a f*cked up ruling, like many others by the libs on the court. As a result, at a minimum, everyone who was part of the regulatory decision should lose their jobs.