Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
A Cost To Bear—Environmental Contamination And Eminent Domain, Evan C. Heaney
A Cost To Bear—Environmental Contamination And Eminent Domain, Evan C. Heaney
Seattle University Law Review
This Note advocates for Washington courts to adopt a system that universally allows evidence of environmental contamination on the private property taken in eminent domain proceedings. Part I of this Note discusses the history and progression of eminent domain and the broader constitutional roots of the Takings Clause. Part II explores Washington’s environmental remediation statute. Part III details the various approaches jurisdictions around the county have formulated to deal with this issue. Part IV argues Washington courts should adopt the inclusionary approach, which allows the introduction of environmental evidence in eminent domain proceedings.
Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Brian T. Hodges
Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Brian T. Hodges
Seattle Journal of Environmental Law
Washington’s cities and counties are increasingly demanding that owners of residential shoreline properties dedicate large, predetermined critical area buffers as a mandatory condition of any new development. Such demands, when imposed without regard to the specifics of the land use proposal, would appear to violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests established by the U.S. Supreme Court in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). Early decisions from Washington courts faithfully applied these tests, invalidating open space and buffer dedications. But in a series of …