The U.S. Supreme Court will begin hearing arguments today in a property rights dispute case that could make it tougher for states to regulate development in coastal areas, The Associated Press reports.
The case centers around the Murr family of Wisconsin, who tried to sell one of two waterfront plots. The idea was to use the money from the vacant lot to pay for improvements on a rustic cabin that sits on the parcel next door. But county officials nixed the sale for violating local conservation rules and treated the lots as a single property that can’t be split up.
Family members say that move unfairly stripped the vacant lot of its value, which has been assessed at $400,000.
“We felt our rights had been violated,” says Donna Murr, one of four family members who sued the state of Wisconsin and St. Croix County. “If the government is going to take your property, they need to pay for it.”
The case has garnered attention from property rights and business groups that want government officials to pay when regulations restrict property use. The dispute has more than a dozen states lining up on opposite sides.
The Constitution requires compensation if the government takes away a property’s economic value. If the high court sides with the Murrs, it could become easier for landowners to get paid when government rules make their property less valuable.
More than 100 cities and counties across the country—including New Orleans—have similar “merger” restrictions that treat two properties as one if they have the same owner, according to a brief filed by the National League of Cities and other groups. The groups say that type of land use regulation is so prevalent that it shouldn’t surprise property owners who buy vacant adjacent lots.
