|
Servioesbf Mead Data-CentrW, Inc.
<br /> PAGE I C1
<br /> i 'U.S. App. LEXIS -70233, *2ii1
<br /> 991
<br /> In the San-Oieqo Gas case, the Court came close to decidinq the issue. Four
<br /> i:Ju 5 t i ces, were!-of the view, expressed in stronq terms by Justice Brennan that
<br /> the Constitution meant what it said a takirrq, whether requlatory or physical,
<br /> [mandate, that ,the property 1*223 owner be paid just compensation.
<br /> 4fter-the-facj invalidation 6f the offending requlation would not satisfy the
<br /> l
<br /> i,constitutional mandate. Chief Justice Rehnquist indicated Justice Brennan was
<br /> ript buV theI.case was wronq !
<br /> Finally the issue was resolved in 1987 in First English Evanqelical Jutheran
<br /> �Church Y. LasiAnqeles County ' 482 U.S. 304 (1987) . The regulation at issue
<br /> i County; � 9
<br /> prevented theella7ndowner from 4re.buildinq after a, flood destroyed building's an the
<br /> 7!
<br /> property. Sike the complaint had alle
<br /> , . . : ged and the California Court of Appeals
<br /> decision under review had assumed a taking, the Court treated the quest'On. of
<br /> ,whether 2regulatory takir�q had occurred as a given. TO., at 312.
<br /> f. The state argued that, th.e landowner Is remedy tduldbe limited by state law
<br /> p 4
<br /> Simply to determination of
<br /> validity of the uncompensated re�qulatory enactment,
<br /> duly if the state insisted on enforcement afte r the regulation was judiclially
<br /> betermined to require compensation would compensation be due. The Supreme Court
<br /> ie,lected that readinq of the 'Fifth Amendment. The Constitution, the Courtt
<br /> "I , I _ I u lom, said
<br /> J.requires jus t com.pensation for a., regulatory taking, from the date it occurs untll
<br /> t:he. date- 14:2.3.1 of the requlation-s resci5sion :ar amendment.
<br /> For purposes of this opini I an we need not explore in detail the Varid1�_s
<br /> IT
<br /> irticulat tons of:'what constitutes a requlatory takinq that have emerged`
<br /> from the
<br /> taiii both before and after Penn Central and First Lutheran
<br /> Church. n7 MU' ch. ink
<br /> has: flowed in attempts to critique and explain. n8 The Supreme Court itself
<br /> likes to point. out that no set formula exists to determin' t
<br /> e whether compensabn., I
<br /> is constitutionally due for algovernment restriction of
<br /> , property:- instead...the�ouft Must e age in "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries. See P ennCentral
<br /> 438 U�4s. at: 1:.Z '
<br /> .4- First. Lutheran Church, 482 U.S. at 426. Brat at bottolk What
<br /> emerges is at least the basic notion that the e* 01
<br /> government 'Under the quis
<br /> * ulation , cannot take from a property owner the care, "t economic value ofd the
<br /> property, Leaving the. :owner w'ith a mere shell of shambled expectations. n9
<br /> 2 :- 400tnates-
<br /> n7 Compare Penn. Central T
<br /> ransportation Co. v. NewYork Cite, 438 U S 1040,
<br /> 4Z4 (1978) (zaking relulati.onilKorked no: compensable taKinq despite the enormous
<br /> economic setba:,� �tp. he: .owner]1.-. the Court distfilqUishedbetween the
<br /> tha ratte r
<br /> of the government :action iiie,, the physical invasion aspect, from other
<br /> I ' - 7. 41.
<br /> interferences � ts.
<br /> Ces 1w .1 �etl from Some public program adjusting th# bene its and
<br /> :.con C.
<br /> burdens of; e om.I.C. life to. promote the common good.") with Ru kelshau.s
<br /> Monsanto. CO..I. 467 U.S. 9136 0.9841 (regulation requiring Ikq Company to. d1sel6se data
<br /> Ab
<br /> qavethmont and qoverlmen:tl i subsequent disclosure may constitute a taking,:,-
<br /> I. ,Actors to: be considered: incluke company-s investment backed expec.tations.io
<br /> .Conditions. under which data was disclosed to qovern:ment and qovernmen..Vs
<br /> 1eq i timate. interest In lis. 1 d. and Keystone Bituminous Coal
<br /> c: asinq. dotal. a A.s s In V
<br /> BeBenedictis, :48.0 U.S. 470 018.7) (regulation requiring a pe r4centacle of coal be
<br /> left in Platt: for surface support is not a takin_q where there was a, pu6lfc!
<br /> purpose and ho:7;,.S:how:i.nq of di.minuti.on of value in 1
<br /> and") 243.:
<br /> f
<br /> ti.8 ..See a q : XlotnjLand regulations,se re rationality, and Judi cial rev. 1 ew,
<br /> The RSVP th the N611an invitation (Part 1) , 23 Urb. Law:.. .01 .1991 Y1. N.inda the ,
<br /> 411#mmas bf propertysovereignty in the postmoder I
<br /> and s era; The. rqUIat0ey
<br /> L' M X O � rA
<br /> IS LEX
<br />
|