Laserfiche WebLink
'l <br /> Service's Vr Mead. Mata Central. Inc. 71 <br /> N PAGE 9 <br /> 1991 'U.S. App. LEXIS 3223 , +-18 <br /> Court reserved in a passinq .nod to Justice Holmes the thought that there could <br /> . <br /> be specific instances in which a zoning regulation ;would be so intrusive' as to <br /> -191 violate the constitutional norm. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Ca.t. <br /> `272 U.S. 3651 ;395 t19Z61 . Two years later, in Nectow V. City of Cambridge, 217, <br /> U.S. 183 119281 , that passingthought became law, and a specific zoning <br /> regulation was held constitutionally invalid as applied to plaintiff s prope rtyr. <br /> For the next fifty years the Supreme Court left it larCely. to the lta# <br /> courts to se'>rt out the validity of zoning ordinances and other requlator <br /> enactments affecting hand use. nb Those that were found too t truiive --�had <br /> gone 'ton far=� -- were struck dawn dy the courts as violative Of the � <br /> Cons ti-tui t ion. F� <br /> -Footnotes <br /> n n Compare, e.q. , Fritts v;. City of Ashland, 349 S .4 2d 712 tKy. 19fs ) csp t <br /> a zoning nrJ lac�t df: C06M.inated plan resulted in dedlaration% of zon nq o;rdfnar��e <br /> as invalid) with Keopf v. City of Sterling Heights, 215 NW.W.2d 179 (91. ? 1974.I' <br /> f!Ct]urt declined to ==second .guess" local governinq body absent show:tnq that the <br /> foody acted aroi trarily or Capri clow—sly) . # <br /> Footnotes <br /> - <br /> Curiously, these court opihiions often 1did not bother to men,tion exactly what <br /> provision 'Of the Con5titutionr was violated. Perhaps that explains w# ► for Many <br />} years a landowftert5 sale relief in a constitutionalchallenge based bn alland <br /> use requlationi was invalidation of the regulation. See, e.q. , AginS v: City ,of <br /> Vi buron, 598 Pi 2d 25, °28 tCal: 19791 , aff�'d, 447 U.S. 255 € 198i]I . The <br /> .1 447 <br /> provided by the Fifth Amendment of upholding An <br /> iWrly-intrusive requlation by treatinq it as a lawful taking. requiring dust <br /> compensation was not an issue! that attracted judicial attention. <br /> Beginninq_ in 1978, the Supreme Court re-entered the debate about when <br /> requlations went 'toe' far, and whether the remedy was limited to 'declaring <br /> invalidity or whether the requlation could be upheld in exchange for just <br /> compensation; in Penn Central;Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 UIS, 104 <br /> 0 978# , the Court addressed the first issue. when does a requlatory takiriq <br /> occur. Holmes ...formulation gave way to a more elaborate --- out perhaps noumore <br /> certain --. three factor analysis: "the character of the governmental action," <br /> [;*213 the "economic impact of the regulation on the cliimant, " and the =Fextent <br /> to which the re ul.ation has interfered with distinct investment-backed <br /> expectations." 1 d. at 124. Noy taking was found in that case so the second issue,: <br /> remedy, was not addressed. <br /> Subsequently the Court an four separate occasions accepted but then for <br /> various procedural reasons rejected' the opportunity to definitively establish ' <br /> whether, as a matter of federal constitutional law,,,, do overly-intrusive <br /> requlat on entitled the property owner to just competlsatit3n for whatever p r od <br /> the regulation was in effect. See Agins v. Tiburon, 447 1# S. 255 11 80y ; .Saty <br /> Diego Sas & Elec . Co. v. San I#ieob, 4.50 U.S. 621 11981 #; Williamson Cough <br /> Reqional Alarm: nq Comrt'rr v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 t15'B5) ; i acDonaSd .. <br /> Sommer & FIrates V. Yblo CoUnty,r: 477 -U.S. 340 (1186) r <br /> LEX111S .:NEXIS <br /> i <br />