Sarah Bond

But there's also something called a regulatory taking.

The Supreme Court has said that when the government puts too many regulations and restrictions on a piece of property, that's the same as taking it away.

Yeah, by and large, the rule is that cities these days mostly get to do whatever they want when it comes to zoning and permits.

They can even regulate the look and feel of a neighborhood.

They can force you to paint your house a certain color because, you know, a tacky looking house hurts the community.

But there are some limits and Chance the Lawyer wants to test those limits.

One of Chance's main arguments is based on this old case from the 1980s, where the Supreme Court said that the government can't force someone to put an unwanted cable box on their property.

That that is an unconstitutional taking, because the government is taking away your right to use a part of your property.

What you're saying is if you can't cut down the tree, then is it still your tree?

Does it just become the government's tree?

It's like the government should pay you tree rent.

From Chance's perspective, the township of Canton is taking advantage of property owners by requiring them to keep these trees around for the benefit of the community.

And that should be unconstitutional.

Now, the Sixth Circuit did not quite buy Chance's argument that this was an unconstitutional occupation of their property.

But Chance also had this clever backup argument.

He was like,

OK, if the problem here is that when someone cuts down a tree that hurts the rest of the community, fine, but not all trees are the same.

And this tree ordinance in Canton didn't take into account whether it was a big tree that was getting chopped down that provided a lot of shade for people or a tree in the middle of nowhere that didn't benefit that many people in the community.

In the fall of 2021, the court comes out with their decision.

And Chance wins on this narrower argument.