Replies to post #307732 on Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Dollars1]

I'm not quite following. Can you say it again Donot? Thx

[955]

In contrast, when the government enacts a regulation, the government always has the option to rescind the regulation.

Thus, the restriction can never be assumed to be permanent for purposes of compensation, and a purchaser of property cannot expect to be permanently deprived of use, even if the deprivation would have been a taking of his predecessor's property…. [T]he right to use land runs with the land, and a regulatory restriction on use does not make the property the government's when the government does not pay for it. … Since a permanent regulatory taking cannot be forced upon the government, the "entire damages" are not owing until the government decides not to rescind the action which results in the taking, and until that point (or the point at which the judgment becomes final and beyond appeal) the taking is potentially temporary.

Finally,

"the Court holds that just compensation for the regulatory taking of real property interests may be owed to owners who have acquired their property interests after the onset of the taking, due to the government's ability to transform regulatory takings into temporary ones."

http://seekingalpha.com/article/3340185-fannie-mae-the-governments-most-recent-motion-to-dismiss-and-fairholmes-motion-to-stay