Reply #196: Easy to see the logic of it

[blurp]

It's very simple really:

Start with property that someone owns completely.

Now begin making a list of what that person cannot do with the property.

How long does the list have to be before the person no longer owns the property? Suppose the government said "it's yours, you just can't do anything with it". Does the person still own it?

Just having a piece of paper telling you you own it is no substitute for deciding what should be done with it. That's the whole idea of property. If you own it you control it. Losing control means losing a bit of ownership.

That said, this case is totally different since the people that get their land taken ARE PAID FOR IT. That's why this was a good decision.

It's also true that a in a city, everyone agrees that a little bit of their property is owned by everyone else. You just don't move to a city and expect to be able to do whatever you want. To some extent all property is COMMONLY OWNED BY THE CITIZENS. They exercise control over their commonly owned property though their elected officials.

So while property rights advocates might have a good arguement in general about takings, it just doesn't apply here.

Besides, even if regulations in effect take property, the only thing the takings clause people could do is ask for compensation. The changes would still be made.