Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Twenty-Five Years Of The Substantial Advancement Doctrine Applied To Regulatory Takings: From Agins To Lingle V. Chevron, Larry Salzman
Twenty-Five Years Of The Substantial Advancement Doctrine Applied To Regulatory Takings: From Agins To Lingle V. Chevron, Larry Salzman
ExpressO
Beginning with Agins v. City of Tiburon, and continuing for 25 years, the United States Supreme Court has held that regulation effects a taking when it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. Throughout this period, many have criticized this standard as “a return to Lochner,” opposed to the extreme deference accorded economic and property regulation since the New Deal.
A careful review of cases reveals, however, that the “substantial advancement” doctrine is not simply a means-ends review of the efficacy of economic legislation. Rather, the doctrine was initially conceived, and has been applied, as a cause-effect test to ensure …
Why Rent Control Is Still A Regulatory Taking, R. S. Radford
Why Rent Control Is Still A Regulatory Taking, R. S. Radford
ExpressO
The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that land-use regulations that fail to substantially advance legitimate state interests violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This standard seems readily applicable to rent control, a policy that has been shown to exacerbate the problems is intended to remedy, and to impose social heavy costs that would not otherwise exist. Nevertheless, the California Supreme Court has declared that it will not strike down rent control under the substantial advancement standard, nor will it apply a heightened level of scrutiny to such regulations.
In response to these rulings, California rental property owners have …
Why Rent Control Is Still A Regulatory Taking
Why Rent Control Is Still A Regulatory Taking
ExpressO
The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that land-use regulations that fail to substantially advance legitimate state interests violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. This standard seems readily applicable to rent control, a policy that has been shown to exacerbate the problems is intended to remedy, and to impose social heavy costs that would not otherwise exist. Nevertheless, the California Supreme Court has declared that it will not strike down rent control under the substantial advancement standard, nor will it apply a heightened level of scrutiny to such regulations.
In response to these rulings, California rental property owners have …