Readers of this site know that freedom is vitally important. Fundamental to freedom is the idea of property rights, that is, the idea that no one else has the right to tell you what you can or cannot do with your property. While this concept applies to things like companies which you own, the property which we are concerned about here is real estate property.
The right to buy or sell your own land as you see fit is fundamental to having control of your own life away from busybodies and an oppressive government. Oppressive governments (and those in the U.S. often qualify for this label) think that they have the right to control your land.
Unfortunately, the State of Wisconsin is acting like a standard oppressive government. Daniel Jennings gives us details:
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide if a family can sell a piece of property that’s been in the family for 57 years.
The decision in a case called Murr v. Wisconsin could impact the rights of property owners all over the country.
William and Margaret Murr purchased a 1 ¼ acre lot in 1960 and built a cabin, and then three years later bought a similar-sized property adjacent to them, the Leader Telegram reported. Three decades later, the couple gave the land to their children. The family subsequently asked the county about selling the vacant lot, but the county blocked the sale because of a rule requiring lots to have one acre of buildable land. Even though the vacant lot is about 1 ¼ acres, its buildable space is much smaller – less than one acre — after deducting the slope and wetlands area, the newspaper reported.
It appears that the State of Wisconsin thinks that the only legitimate use for land is to build something on it and that you need at least an acre to build on that land.
This, of course, begs the question: whose land is it, then, if the owner can’t do what they want with it? Why is it even the state’s business what you do with your land if you’re not harming someone else on it? Why does the state even care if you sell someone a piece of land with less than an acre to build on? Some people want to buy property like that! Some people buy islands with buildable areas of that size just so they can have some privacy.
This is tyranny, plain and simple, and the Supreme Court needs to rule that it’s not the state’s business if this family sells that land.
What do you think: Is the state in the right on this, or does the family have the right to do what they want with their land? Sound off below.