Tulloch Rule (Wetlands)

Langrrr at aol.com Langrrr at aol.com
Thu Jan 21 00:22:05 EST 1999

In article <36a63964.0 at news.pacifier.com>,
  dhogaza at pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> In article <7811nc$2e8$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com>,  <Langrrr at aol.com> wrote:
> >In article <36a3d885.0 at news.pacifier.com>,
> >  dhogaza at pacifier.com (Don Baccus) wrote:
> >> And it was not ruled on as a 5th Amendments takings issue (which is
> >> what I meant by describing it as not being a Constitutional property
> >> rights case).
> Is there something about my clarification above that Andrew doesn't
> understand?

No, your clarification was very clear - because it was not a takings case, it
was not a  "constitutional property rights case."  My comment merely
underscores that your view, even when clarified, is a narrow one of the

> [snip]
> >But only someone with a limited knowlege (and thus view of the situation)
> >would say that a challenge to a land-use regulation arising out of a
> >situation such as this is not a Constitutional Property Rights case.
> Because in my clarification I thought I was clear that I didn't
> precisely define what I meant.

Yes, your clarification made it clear that you were unclear in the beginning.
 It (your clarification)  did  not, however, make any attempt to expand that
definition of "constitutional property rights cases" beyond the narrow scope
outlined by you.

Sorry, Don, if this frustrates you.  But you invited me into this debate by
pointing out my absence.  If you didn't want me involved, you needn't have
mentioned my name.

 - Andrew Langer

"If property owners in Florida are treated like Rodney Dangerfield, property
owners in the Florida Keys are treated like Rodney King." - Peter Gioia,
Pacific Legal Foundation

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own    

More information about the Ag-forst mailing list