Land Use Law Commons^™

Federal Courts And Takings Litigation, Ann Woolhandler, Julia D. Mahoney

Notre Dame Law Review

This Article first gives an overview of the role of the federal courts in takings claims over time, with a view to providing a more complete picture than that supplied by focusing either on the Lochner/New Deal-era dichotomy or on the advent of the 1871 Civil Rights Act (current § 1983). It traces the fairly robust role of the federal courts in protecting property under a nonconfiscation norm both before and during the Lochner era. It also points out that the legislative history of the 1871 Civil Rights Act does not support a firm conclusion that Congress intended takings …

Taking It Too Far: Growth Management And The Limits To Land-Use Regulation In Maine, Michael A. Duddy

Maine Law Review

In 1989 Maine enacted the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. The Act's legislative findings declared that “ the State has a vital interest in ensuring that a comprehensive system of land-use planning and growth management is established as quickly as possible.” However, whenever the state exercises its police power to regulate private land use, it faces a constitutional limit as to how far it can go. When the land-use restriction exceeds that limit, a regulatory taking occurs. This Comment argues that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, as it is being interpreted and implemented by state …

Taking It Too Far: Growth Management And The Limits To Land-Use Regulation In Maine, Michael A. Duddy

Maine Law Review

In 1989 Maine enacted the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act. The Act's legislative findings declared that “ the State has a vital interest in ensuring that a comprehensive system of land-use planning and growth management is established as quickly as possible.” However, whenever the state exercises its police power to regulate private land use, it faces a constitutional limit as to how far it can go. When the land-use restriction exceeds that limit, a regulatory taking occurs. This Comment argues that the Comprehensive Planning and Land Use Regulation Act, as it is being interpreted and implemented by state …

Martin V. United States, Mitch L. Werbell V

Public Land & Resources Law Review

In Martin v. United States, the Federal Circuit Court dismissed a Fifth Amendment regulatory takings and exaction claim for want of ripeness when the claimant failed to apply for a permit, which would have allowed for an assessment of the cost of compliance with governmentally imposed requirements. By finding the claim unripe, the court stood firm on the historical view that federal courts may only adjudicate land-use regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims on the merits after a regulating entity has made a final decision. However, jurisprudential evolution of the ripeness doctrine and judicial review of takings claims may …

Florida Rock Industries, Inc. V. United States: Tipping The Scales In Favor Of Private Property Rights At The Public's Expense, Susan E. Spokes University Of Maine School Of Law

Maine Law Review

In Florida Rock Industries, Inc. v. United States the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the denial of a federal wetlands permit under section 1344 of the Clean Water Act may constitute a compensable taking of private property under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court remanded the case to the Federal Court of Claims to determine the value of the property remaining after the permit denial, while warning the trial court that the existing record did not support a finding of the loss of all economically viable use of the property. The Federal …

Insuring Takings Claims, Christopher Serkin

Northwestern University Law Review

Local governments typically insure themselves against all kinds of losses, from property damage to legal liability. For small- and medium-sized governments, this usually means purchasing insurance from private insurers or participating in municipal risk pools. Insurance for regulatory takings claims, however, is generally unavailable. This previously unnoticed gap in municipal insurance coverage could lead risk averse local governments to underregulate and underenforce existing regulations where property owners threaten to bring takings claims. This seemingly technical observation turns out to have profound implications for theoretical accounts of the Takings Clause that focus on government regulatory incentives. This Article explores the impact …

Climate Exactions, J. Peter Byrne, Kathryn A. Zyla

Maryland Law Review

No abstract provided.

Public Access Vs. Private Property: The Struggle Of Coastal Landowners To Keep The Public Off Their Land, James D. Donahue

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

No abstract provided.

From Railroads To Sand Dunes: An Examination Of The Offsetting Doctrine In Partial Takings, Louis M. Russo

Fordham Law Review

Called “shadowy at best,” the offsetting doctrine in partial takings has confused “even trained legal minds” and generated inconsistent decision after inconsistent decision. The offsetting doctrine allows certain benefits, termed special, to offset condemnation awards, while general benefits may not be offset. Courts blindly adhere to the doctrine despite its underpinnings rooted in eighteenth-century public policy, which was based on concerns of overly speculative valuation and arguably erroneous fairness, as well as incorrect interpretations of Takings Clause jurisprudence. Such adherence dramatically increases the cost of financing a takings project.

In the face of blind adherence to the doctrine, municipalities are …

The Categorical Lucas Rule And The Nuisance And Background Principles Exception, Carol Necole Brown

Touro Law Review

This article examines the seminal 1992 United States Supreme Court decision, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, specifically focusing on the Lucas nuisance exception. The author surveyed approximately 1,600 reported regulatory takings cases decided since the Lucas decision involving Lucas takings challenges. The author further identified the statutory nuisance cases in which state and local governments unsuccessfully asserted the Lucas nuisance exception as a defense to the courts’ findings of a Lucas taking. This article examines the prospective potential of these cases for assisting private property owners in enhancing private property rights protections within the area of regulatory takings.

The Ripeness Game: Why Are We Still Forced To Play?, Michael M. Berger

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Koontz V. St. Johns River Water Management District, Ross Keogh

Public Land & Resources Law Review

Koontz extends the application of Nollan and Dolan, which require exactions of real property for land-use permits to share a “nexus” and be “roughly proportional” to the regulation to be constitutional. A divided United States Supreme Court held that “monetary exactions,” potentially including building permit fees or impact fees, must satisfy the Nollan and Dolan requirements even if the government denies the permit.[1] The Court did not reach the merits of the petitioner’s appeal.

[1](Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., dissenting).

Agins V. City Of Tiburon: Open Space Zoning Prevails - Failure To Submit Master Plan Prevents A Cognizable Decrease In Property Value, Jermaine Chastain

Pepperdine Law Review

This casenote examines the Supreme Court's struggle to reconcile its focus on the facial validity of a zoning ordinance with the traditional "taking" approach requiring diligent factual inquiry. While the Agins Court reiterates such an approach, the author notes the Court's departure from important constitutional and precedential considerations. The author offers a possible explanation for the departure, concluding that the Agins decision apparently makes plan submission a prerequisite for acknowledging economic loss and strongly implies a requirement of complete loss of all property value before a compensable taking will be recognized.

The Wholesale Decommissioning Of Vacant Urban Neighborhoods: Smart Decline, Public-Purpose Takings, And The Legality Of Shrinking Cities, Ben Beckman

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note is principally concerned with those takings that arise from the State's exercise of eminent domain, either directly or through the State's designee. To put a finer point on it, this Note addresses the distinction that property-rights advocates have developed to delegitimize certain types of takings. This distinction divides condemnations into disfavored-yet-legitimate takings-the direct-government-use and common-carrier takings-and ostensibly illegitimate public-purpose takings. The property-rights movement unequivocally places economic-development takings in the illegitimate category. The status of blight-remediation takings is ambiguous but tends toward legitimacy.

Tort Law, Honorable Leon D. Lazer

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Dashed "Investment-Backed" Expectations: Will The Constitution Protect Property Owners From Excesses In Implementation Of The Growth Management Act?, Elaine Spencer

Seattle University Law Review

Section I briefly discusses the basic principles of takings law as enunciated by prior cases, as well as the United States Supreme Court's recent decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, and the Washington Supreme Court's recent decisions in Sintra, Inc. v. Seattle and Robinson v. Seattle. Although the Lucas decision has received considerable publicity, it advanced the state of the law rather little. The real guidance for future decisions arising out of the GMA will come from earlier United States Supreme Court decisions and the Washington Supreme Court's decisions in Sintra, Robinson, and Lutheran …

Takings Law, Lucas, And The Growth Management Act, John M. Groen, Richard M. Stephens

Seattle University Law Review

In light of Lucas and the recent constitutionally questionable Washington decisions, government entities charged with implementing the GMA may have a more difficult time avoiding takings liability than previously thought. Accordingly, this Article first seeks to clarify the modern takings analysis as refined by Lucas. Second, Washington takings precedent is contrasted with the federal approach and several key changes are suggested to make state law consistent with controlling federal precedent. Third, key aspects of the GMA are identified that can be expected to raise takings implications. By identifying potential trouble spots in the GMA now, hopefully some takings will …

Between Scylla And Charybdis: Growth Management Act Implementation That Avoids Takings And Substantive Due Process Limitations, Jeffrey M. Eustis

Seattle University Law Review

This Article begins with an overview of the GMA. It then proceeds with a summary of recent case law under the Takings Clause and substantive due process doctrine. After laying this groundwork, this Article focuses on four particular areas of growth management control and explores how local legislation implementing these areas of control would be analyzed under the Takings Clause and substantive due process. These four areas of land use regulation include: critical area protections, resource land designations, development phasing requirements for concurrency and urban growth areas, and impact fees for public facilities and services. This Article then concludes with …