Chance Weldon

I'm the director of litigation at the Texas Public Policy Foundation.

And that means that I sue the government for a living, which is an absolutely sweet gig.

And the one thing that always stuck out to me is like, you couldn't have a tree house.

You couldn't change things in the yard because you had to ask the landlord first.

And the thing that distinguished to me ownership from renting is not having to ask the landlord.

And so anytime I see the city come in and act in ways that remind me of a landlord,

It just sets off my alarm bells of somebody's property rights are being violated.

Typically, that means that I can sell it or I can use it or I can change it or I can build something on it.

So the takings clause says that the government cannot take private property

except for a public use and with just compensation.

And so then the question becomes, when has the government gone too far by regulating what you can do on your property that it's effectively taken it away?

So if you think about if the government just came and stood on your property and occupied it, that part of the property that they occupied, they've really just taken possession of it.

Yeah, that's the theory.

And they're just basically forcing you into this mandatory physical occupation of your property.

Yes, that was the argument.

If they care so much about the tree, then they should have to pay for the use of the property.

It's like, oh, man.

You know, not only does this solve the problem for my client, but it's going to open the door to, you know, expand property rights and protect property rights and attack a lot more of these permitting regimes.