This story was originally published by the WND News Center.
Teton County, Wyoming, is one of America's enclaves for the elite.
Figures from 2019 confirm that residents there had the highest average incomes per capita of any county in the U.S., at $252,000.
Property owners include Bill Gates, of Microsoft billions.
As of the fourth quarter of 2021, the median home price in the county, meaning half of the homes were priced higher, was $1,060,093.
Nevertheless, homeowners there don't like a county governmental "shakedown" any more than people in other locations.
A report from the Pacific Legal Foundation reveals homeowners Trey and Shelby Scharp are suing in federal court over "excessive and unlawful permit fees the county demanded before allowing them to build a home."
The foundation explained, "Their lawsuit argues that Teton County's 'workforce housing' fees only increase the cost of housing for homeowners, are completely unrelated to their permit, and violate well-established Supreme Court precedents prohibiting governments from extorting money from property owners."
Austin Waisanen, a lawyer for the foundation, explained, "The Scharp family was required to pay a 'workforce housing' fee, despite being told they could not build rental housing on their property. These fees don't make housing cheaper for anyone; they just drive up costs to create housing,"
He continued, "The Constitution is clear that governments cannot compel homebuilders to pay excessive fees for problems they do not create."
The "workforce housing" fee assessed against the Scharps was $25,000, the report said.
While the fee is intended to "help" the workforce in the county that includes Jackson Hole, the county also blocked the Scharps from including a rental unit on their property, a plan that "would have directly helped address worker housing."
Defendants named are the county's board of commissioners.
The court filing, in U.S. district court in Wyoming, explains, "When a local government imposes a condition on land use permits that requires the payment of money or the dedication of real property—what the law terms an 'exaction'—it must make an individualized determination that the condition is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed land use. … Local governments bear the burden of showing that an exaction bears an 'essential nexus' and 'rough proportionality' to the public impacts of a proposed land use. Together, the nexus and proportionality tests ensure that an exaction is necessary to mitigate a proposed land use's impact, and that the scale of an exaction is no larger than necessary. An exaction which lacks either an essential nexus or proportionality is unlawful, and nothing more than an 'out-and-out plan of extortion.'"
The legal filing charges that the Scharps' construction of new home "does not have any negative impact on housing affordability in Teton County."
It added, "Basic principles of economics show that building a new home increases the supply of available housing and therefore mitigates—not aggravates—housing affordability in Teton County."
Ironically, the family ran into trouble with the county because they planned a 3,700 square foot home with options to rent out an existing cabin on the property, as well as the basement of the new construction.
The county vetoed their plans for providing "too much" rental space.
The case seeks a court ruling that the county standards violate the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions and a judgment that their rights were violated by the process. They also seek economic damages and an injunction against the county's fee scheme.
