UPDATE Agenda 21 SCOTUS hearing tomorrow (Jan 16)Submitted by stm on Mon, 01/14/2013 - 10:54
See below for update
OK, the article doesn't call it Agenda 21 but that is precisely what it's about.
"Tomorrow morning the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral argument in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the biggest property rights case of the current term. At issue is a Florida regulatory agency’s refusal to allow a property owner to commercially develop a small piece of land unless he first agreed to hand over 75 percent of the lot to the state for conservation purposes and also fund unrelated improvements to 50 acres of public land located several miles away."
This issue that Koontz has to hand over 75% for 'conservation' and fund 'improvements' for other land is part and parcel of Agenda 21 rules most likely implemented in Florida through its 'sustanable development' program.
* * * * *
"The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday in a major case pitting property rights advocates against government regulators in a battle over the proper scope of the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which requires the government to pay just compensation when it takes private property for a public use. Going by what the justices said in the courtroom that morning, the government regulators appear likely to prevail in a divided ruling.
Attorney Paul Beard... told the justices that the St. Johns River Water Management District was guilty of imposing an “unconstitutional condition” on his client.
That argument found little traction with the Court’s liberals... “Counsel, I’ve had a problem with your argument, okay?” declared Justice Sotomayor at the outset.
But the most surprising resistance came from conservative Justice Antonin Scalia, who questioned whether Koontz had suffered any injury at all under the Takings Clause. “What has been taken?” Scalia asked Beard. “The permit’s been denied. I can’t see where there’s a taking here. Nothing’s been taken.”
Is Scalia a total jerk now, too? The guy is unable to develop his property so that ABILITY to develop his property has been 'taken' from him!
The decision won't happen until June so it's anyone's guess what the outcome will be.
There are oher arguments which are interesting. You can read the whole thing: