The Takings Clause was "designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole." (Armstrong v. United States). The seemingly limitless taxpayer-funded legal advice used by individual Town of Underhill officials should not have absolved culpable parties of their willful decisions to find "any way" to "rescind" others' private property rights for personal gain and recreational interests not meeting the prerequisite definition of Necessity.

The United States Supreme Court Precedent in Knick corrected the former error of Williamson County in theory but a local municipality can strategically deny residents a meaningful day in Federal Court if a state statute grants unbridled discretion or otherwise infringes upon once clearly understood civil rights. 

19 V.S.A. § 701(2) as applied following the Vermont supreme court statutory interpretation of “altered” set by Ketchum v. Town of Dorset precedent remains unconstitutionally vague since it currently grants Vermont municipalities unbridled discretion on matters which may involve the unnecessary Taking of protected private property rights without due process of law or just compensation.

The Town of Underhill officials' churlish contempt for Mr. Demarest's property rights is easily summed up noting the change of his lot designation from “NR” to “FU.” Underhill Town officials should never have been granted a windfall level of unbridled discretion to willfully violate local landowner civil rights, nor should a former Planning Commission Chair have emailed Mr. Demarest, “If you don’t like it here leave.” (as alleged in initial pleadings ¶177 of Federal 1983 Civil Rights Road-To-Trail Taking Case which is viewable on A-68 of Appendix to Second Circuit Case 22-956)