<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Murr v. Wisconsin: is taking a sub-parcel of land compensable?	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/03/murr-v-wisconsin-taking-sub-parcel-land-compensable/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/03/murr-v-wisconsin-taking-sub-parcel-land-compensable/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:04:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Derek		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2017/03/murr-v-wisconsin-taking-sub-parcel-land-compensable/comment-page-1/#comment-344746</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Derek]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Mar 2017 11:04:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://www.overlawyered.com/?p=62997#comment-344746</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Can government through its power to zone and regulate subdivisions make a legal parcel into a subparcel by forced merger of contiguous legal parcels under common ownership?
The answer SHOULD be NO
Let&#039;s see what those blackrobed vizirs decide
After all--they created Chevron and Kelo out of wholecloth so surely they can conjure a power of GOVCO to weave a result that makes the rug merchants on local planning authorities proud. And screws land owners out of a few more sticks
Let&#039;s see]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can government through its power to zone and regulate subdivisions make a legal parcel into a subparcel by forced merger of contiguous legal parcels under common ownership?<br />
The answer SHOULD be NO<br />
Let&#8217;s see what those blackrobed vizirs decide<br />
After all&#8211;they created Chevron and Kelo out of wholecloth so surely they can conjure a power of GOVCO to weave a result that makes the rug merchants on local planning authorities proud. And screws land owners out of a few more sticks<br />
Let&#8217;s see</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
