Definition of "combination AFCI" - NEC headed for the cliff?

Discussion in 'Electrical Engineering' started by phil-news-nospam@ipal.net, Sep 25, 2006.

  1. Guest

    It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on
    some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC
    failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very
    expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing
    document).

    I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has
    GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a
    combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder
    AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in
    terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI
    were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device
    (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive).

    I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not
    even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able
    to know all the issues involved.

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bud-- Guest

    wrote:
    > It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on
    > some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC
    > failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very
    > expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing
    > document).
    >
    > I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has
    > GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a
    > combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder
    > AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in
    > terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI
    > were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device
    > (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive).
    >


    As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC.

    Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at:
    http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf

    They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I
    have read).

    A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at
    http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf
    It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work
    and what shouldn't cause them to trip.


    > I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not
    > even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able
    > to know all the issues involved.
    >


    My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now
    available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was
    that specifically Combination?

    bud--
     
    Bud--, Sep 26, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:32:31 -0500 Bud-- <> wrote:
    | wrote:
    |> It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on
    |> some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC
    |> failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very
    |> expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing
    |> document).
    |>
    |> I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has
    |> GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a
    |> combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder
    |> AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in
    |> terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI
    |> were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device
    |> (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive).
    |>
    |
    | As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC.
    |
    | Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at:
    | http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf
    |
    | They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I
    | have read).

    Cutler-Hammer has them, AFCI + 6ma GFCI.


    | A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at
    | http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf
    | It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work
    | and what shouldn't cause them to trip.

    Seen it. It's part of the contradictions I've mentioned.


    |> I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not
    |> even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able
    |> to know all the issues involved.
    |>
    |
    | My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now
    | available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was
    | that specifically Combination?

    They were panel type. I don't know what they were marketed for.

    I know Cutler-Hammer has combination types of the definition of AFCI+GFCI
    and has them in both 6ma and 30ma, and in 1-pole and 2-pole.

    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/AFCI_CUTAWAY.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/AFCI_UL_SPECIAL_SERVICES_INVESTIGATION.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/DWELLINGAFCIFIRES.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/DWELLINGELECTRICALFIRES.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/IL00301044E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/PUB49216REV5.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/PUB49217REV4.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402003E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402005E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402006E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/RE00402008E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/SA00402001E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/SA00402002E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TB00300001E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TD00308001E.PDF
    http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/TD01201036E.PDF

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 26, 2006
    #3
  4. Bud-- Guest

    wrote:

    > On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:32:31 -0500 Bud-- <> wrote:
    > | wrote:
    > |> It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on
    > |> some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC
    > |> failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very
    > |> expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing
    > |> document).
    > |>
    > |> I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has
    > |> GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a
    > |> combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder
    > |> AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in
    > |> terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI
    > |> were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device
    > |> (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive).
    > |>
    > |
    > | As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC.
    > |
    > | Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at:
    > | http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf
    > |
    > | They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I
    > | have read).
    >
    > Cutler-Hammer has them, AFCI + 6ma GFCI.
    >


    What I was trying to say is that AFCIs are not required to have a 6mA
    ground fault trip. The CH devices are a combined AFCI and normal GFCI.

    >
    > | A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at
    > | http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf
    > | It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work
    > | and what shouldn't cause them to trip.
    >
    > Seen it. It's part of the contradictions I've mentioned.
    >


    I wasn't impressed by the clarity but I don't remember it was that bad.

    >
    > |> I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not
    > |> even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able
    > |> to know all the issues involved.
    > |>
    > |
    > | My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now
    > | available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was
    > | that specifically Combination?
    >
    > They were panel type. I don't know what they were marketed for.
    >
    > I know Cutler-Hammer has combination types of the definition of AFCI+GFCI
    > and has them in both 6ma and 30ma, and in 1-pole and 2-pole.
    >


    Looks like CH is combined AFCI and normal GFCI. That is not what UL or
    the NEC had in mind for "Combination AFCI". Among other things,
    "Combination" adds series arc detection.

    --------------
    No rumors on what is going on with "Combination" development?


    > http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/AFCI_UL_SPECIAL_SERVICES_INVESTIGATION.PDF

    Interesting link - UL report - for a "glowing connection" at a
    receptacle binding screw an AFCI may (or may not) eventually trip on
    its ground fault function.

    > http://www.eatonelectrical.com/unsecure/cms1/DWELLINGAFCIFIRES.PDF

    Also interesting - stats on room of incidence of electrical fires

    bud--
     
    Bud--, Sep 27, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:07:58 -0500 Bud-- <> wrote:
    | wrote:
    |
    |> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 01:32:31 -0500 Bud-- <> wrote:
    |> | wrote:
    |> |> It seems there is more than one defintion of "combination AFCI" based on
    |> |> some searches via Google. I decided to do this search because the NEC
    |> |> failed to define this, referring only to UL 1699. UL documents are very
    |> |> expensive (several times the cost of the whole NEC for just one testing
    |> |> document).
    |> |>
    |> |> I've seen definitions that describe a combination AFCI as one that has
    |> |> GFCI protection integrated. I've also seen definitions that describe a
    |> |> combination AFCI as one that combines the protection of a "branch/feeder
    |> |> AFCI" and an "outlet circuit AFCI". And I've seen definitions made in
    |> |> terms of a number of test parameters where a few different types of AFCI
    |> |> were compared in terms of what tests were being performed by the device
    |> |> (and the combination AFCI was not the most comprehensive).
    |> |>
    |> |
    |> | As you said, "Combination AFCI" is a UL definition, not NEC.
    |> |
    |> | Information on what Combinations AFCIs are is at:
    |> | http://www.ul.com/regulators/afci/AFCI_scenarios020502.pdf
    |> |
    |> | They still have 30mA GFCI - 6mA has not been included (in anything I
    |> | have read).
    |>
    |> Cutler-Hammer has them, AFCI + 6ma GFCI.
    |>
    |
    | What I was trying to say is that AFCIs are not required to have a 6mA
    | ground fault trip. The CH devices are a combined AFCI and normal GFCI.

    However, certain circuits _are_ required to have 6ma level protection.
    If you're going to have AFCI to virtually all 120 volt circuits in the
    house, that would probably include bathroom and kitchen, too. So one
    option is to combine the AFCI and the required 6ma GFCI in the same
    unit.

    I guess that is a reflection of my own bias because I happen to think
    that GFCI receptacles are ugly. My intention all along has been to go
    with either a "hidden" (accessible, but located more like where one
    would place a panel) GFCI receptacles that control the ones that will
    be in the kitchen, or just use a GFCI breaker. The latter choice is
    more expensive. But I could also add AFCI protection at the same time
    with the Cutler-Hammer breakers. And I could also do so for 240 volt
    circuits.

    Personally, I don't care about the bathrooms. Having AFCI+30maGFCI in
    the breaker, and 6maGFCI in the receptacle, is fine there. It's the
    kitchen where I am trying to have a very specific kind of look, and
    GFCI receptacles are not a part of that plan. So it most likely will
    be AFCI+6maGFCI in double pole breakers.


    |> | A good paper from the Consumer Product Safety Commission on AFCIs is at
    |> | http://www.cpsc.gov/volstd/afci/AFCIFireTechnology.pdf
    |> | It includes the rationalle for using AFCIs, information on how they work
    |> | and what shouldn't cause them to trip.
    |>
    |> Seen it. It's part of the contradictions I've mentioned.
    |>
    |
    | I wasn't impressed by the clarity but I don't remember it was that bad.

    I'm not even sure it's all that accurate with respect to the fine details
    of things like what's in the UL 1699 document (which I don't have because
    such things are very expensive).


    |> |> I also saw commentary in the NEC 2008 ROP that combination AFCIs are not
    |> |> even on the market, yet. So are they going into this blind and not able
    |> |> to know all the issues involved.
    |> |>
    |> |
    |> | My intent in the other thread was to ask if "Copmbination AFCIs" are now
    |> | available. When you said "Square-D, Cutler-Hammer, and GE have them" was
    |> | that specifically Combination?
    |>
    |> They were panel type. I don't know what they were marketed for.
    |>
    |> I know Cutler-Hammer has combination types of the definition of AFCI+GFCI
    |> and has them in both 6ma and 30ma, and in 1-pole and 2-pole.
    |>
    |
    | Looks like CH is combined AFCI and normal GFCI. That is not what UL or
    | the NEC had in mind for "Combination AFCI". Among other things,
    | "Combination" adds series arc detection.

    And this _is_ my point about the contradictions. Some documents say or
    hint at one thing, and some say or hint at another. NEC is doing a poor
    job of explaining by merely making reference to the UL 1699 standard that
    hardly anyone will ever see. I believe they should literally spell out
    exactly what protections they expect to be present.


    | No rumors on what is going on with "Combination" development?

    I have no idea. I've just seen the products that both Square-D and
    Cutler-Hammer have. I just note that Cutler-Hammer have a sufficient
    product line for me to put in reasonable levels of protection for some
    rooms in my future house.

    I'm planning to have "double duplex" receptacles in my kitchen. These
    will be a total of 4 outlets in a 2x2 arrangement, with the left on
    one 20 amp pole and the right on another 20 amp pole. This will be fed
    with one cable with the origination of the circuit being a two pole
    breaker. Whether this will be shared neutral or not I don't know at
    this time. If it were allowed to mark the BLUE wire as GRAY to make it
    be a 2nd groundED conductor (200.6 requires this) in a cable assembly,
    then I could avoid a shared neutral by using the cables intended for
    three phase WYE. I've heard that cables specific to this are available,
    but I've never seen then sold anywhere, either in stores or online.
    In any event, this finally leads me to planning to use an AFCI+6maGFCI
    two pole breaker, one for each of the 2x2 (since I do not want to have
    any daisy chaining of shared neutral). Other options include conduit
    with singles of all the right colors, or larger than 6 AWG (that would
    be absurd for a 20 amp circuit, of course).

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 27, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    On 27 Sep 2006 20:44:17 GMT, wrote:

    >However, certain circuits _are_ required to have 6ma level protection.
    >If you're going to have AFCI to virtually all 120 volt circuits in the
    >house, that would probably include bathroom and kitchen, too. So one
    >option is to combine the AFCI and the required 6ma GFCI in the same
    >unit.



    Hmmm and sone "industry types" from Cuttler Hammer (who sell this
    device) on CMP2 made this rule happen..

    ,... But it isn't a marketing thing, yeah right!

    Fcking snake oil with the power of law!
     
    , Sep 28, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:48 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician <> wrote:

    | I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on
    | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it cannot
    | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs
    | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI
    | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I would
    | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of
    | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will
    | acquire AFCI protection.

    Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the
    seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 28, 2006
    #7
  8. Stephen B. Guest

    "Tom Horne, Electrician"wrote
    > wrote:
    > > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:48 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician

    <> wrote:
    > >
    > > | I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on
    > > | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it

    cannot
    > > | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs
    > > | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI
    > > | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I

    would
    > > | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of
    > > | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will
    > > | acquire AFCI protection.
    > >
    > > Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean

    the
    > > seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
    > >

    >
    > Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.


    I have never heard of getting a new use and occupancy permit when you buy a
    house. Having seen some things that have survived purchases, and exist in
    some rentals, AFCI protection inspection would not be on the top of my list
    for upgrades at purchase.

    --
    Stephen B.
    To reply remove the first spam only
     
    Stephen B., Sep 28, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician <> wrote:
    | wrote:
    |> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:48 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician <> wrote:
    |>
    |> | I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on
    |> | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it cannot
    |> | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs
    |> | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI
    |> | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I would
    |> | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of
    |> | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will
    |> | acquire AFCI protection.
    |>
    |> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the
    |> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
    |>
    |
    | Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.

    So basically you plan to completely destroy all ability for people to buy
    fixer-uppers and fix them up by requiring the houses to be fixed up before
    someone can move in to work on them?

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 29, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:42:55 GMT Stephen B. <> wrote:
    | "Tom Horne, Electrician"wrote
    |> wrote:
    |> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 02:46:48 GMT Tom Horne, Electrician
    | <> wrote:
    |> >
    |> > | I don't usually subscribe to "it's all a corrupt scam" theories but on
    |> > | this one I do. AFCI protection is not ready for prime time as it
    | cannot
    |> > | detect the most common arcs. They are being applied to new installs
    |> > | which are the systems that least need that protection. When the AFCI
    |> > | technology reaches the point that it can detect series arcs then I
    | would
    |> > | favor requiring their installation during any heavy up or change of
    |> > | ownership in housing. In that way as the wiring system ages it will
    |> > | acquire AFCI protection.
    |> >
    |> > Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean
    | the
    |> > seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
    |> >
    |>
    |> Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.
    |
    | I have never heard of getting a new use and occupancy permit when you buy a
    | house. Having seen some things that have survived purchases, and exist in
    | some rentals, AFCI protection inspection would not be on the top of my list
    | for upgrades at purchase.

    Lots of people regularly buy homes that are just marginally occupiable,
    and then proceed to move in and begin to fix them up. This was in fact
    my previous plan. It is still a fallback plan for me. I think it would
    be a stupid waste for force a seller to install something that I'm going
    to tear out and replace, anyway. More than likely, many older homes
    would need a full panel replacement, which would then have to be torn
    out and replaced all over in a great many (near half of) cases.

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 29, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT, "Tom Horne, Electrician"
    <> wrote:

    >> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the
    >> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
    >>

    >
    >Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.


    I doubt this would pass constitutional muster if someone brought a
    case. It is ex post facto law and may be a "taking".
     
    , Sep 29, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:03:42 -0400 wrote:
    | On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT, "Tom Horne, Electrician"
    | <> wrote:
    |
    |>> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the
    |>> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
    |>>
    |>
    |>Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.
    |
    | I doubt this would pass constitutional muster if someone brought a
    | case. It is ex post facto law and may be a "taking".

    However, I would guess there are more people that would like to have such
    laws or rules.

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:21:47 GMT Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT <> wrote:
    | wrote:
    |> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 22:03:42 -0400 wrote:
    |> | On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 19:55:02 GMT, "Tom Horne, Electrician"
    |> | <> wrote:
    |> |
    |> |>> Under you idea of "or change of ownership in housing" would that mean the
    |> |>> seller has to install, or the buyer has to install?
    |> |>>
    |> |>
    |> |>Negotiable, NO use and occupancy permit without electrical clearance.
    |> |
    |> | I doubt this would pass constitutional muster if someone brought a
    |> | case. It is ex post facto law and may be a "taking".
    |>
    |> However, I would guess there are more people that would like to have such
    |> laws or rules.
    |>
    |
    | So far the courts have not been willing to treat property regulation
    | such as zoning and code enforcement as taking. Requiring code
    | compliance prior to a change in ownership has also not been treated as
    | an ex post facto enactment by the various courts of appeal.

    Not true in some cases I've read about, including in Texas.


    | I am aware of the ballot propositions that are proposed in the west that
    | will treat all property regulation as taking. If they pass be prepared
    | to have a rendering plant next door to you with your only recourse being
    | to sue the plants owners and operators for loss of "quiet enjoyment."

    I think it is quite different than requiring homes to be rewired when there
    is a change of ownership.

    --
    |---------------------------------------/----------------------------------|
    | Phil Howard KA9WGN (ka9wgn.ham.org) / Do not send to the address below |
    | first name lower case at ipal.net / |
    |------------------------------------/-------------------------------------|
     
    , Sep 30, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:21:47 GMT, "Thomas D. Horne, FF EMT"
    <> wrote:

    >So far the courts have not been willing to treat property regulation
    >such as zoning and code enforcement as taking.


    I suggest you look at Reahard v Lee County Florida. The SCOTUS let the
    lower court ruling stand and affirmed changing the zoning in a way
    that removes the ability to develop property is a taking.
     
    , Sep 30, 2006
    #14
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. jack

    Definition help

    jack, Sep 18, 2003, in forum: Electronic Basics
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    470
    JeffM
    Sep 24, 2003
  2. Dave
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    350
  3. Phil Allison

    Double Headed Fakes

    Phil Allison, Aug 23, 2007, in forum: Hobby Electronics
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    743
    Bob Parker
    Aug 25, 2007
  4. Charles Perry

    Re: Combination AFCI/GFCI Circuit Breakers?

    Charles Perry, Sep 14, 2007, in forum: Electrical Engineering
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,028
    bud--
    Sep 17, 2007
  5. amdx

    We're headed in the right direction

    amdx, Aug 19, 2010, in forum: Electronic Design
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    197
Loading...

Share This Page