Laserfiche WebLink
Semces of Mead Data Central, Ina <br /> PAGE 9 <br /> 1991 U11S. App, LEXIS 30233, *18 <br /> CO.Yr,t reserved in a passing no to Justice Holmes the thought that there could <br /> be Specific specific instances in whichP zoning regulation would be so intrusive as to i <br /> C*J 93 violate`the constitutional norm. grillage of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., <br /> 272 U.S. 365, 395 (1926) . Two }rears later, in Nectow v. City of Cambridge 277 <br /> U.S. 183 (1928) ; that passim} thought became lawf and a specific zon:inq <br /> requ,lation was held constituiiona111y invalid as applied to plaintiff`sproperty;.. <br /> s <br /> For the next•-fifty years the Supreme Court left it largely to the state <br /> courts to sort out the validity of zoning ordinances and other regulatory: <br /> enactments affecting land use. 1,n6 Those that were found too intrusive had <br /> gone: 'torr far' _-- were struck down by the courts as violative sof the <br /> Constitution. <br />' 4 Er <br /> _ .. ..Y -Footnotes- _ - - - - _ - - - - - - <br /> 1 n6 Compare., e.q. , Fritts v. iCity of Ashland, 348 S.W. 24 712, Wy. 19611' (spot <br /> zot�itq and lack of coordinated :plan resulted in declaration of zonitiq ordinance <br /> as; invalid) with IK;ropf v. City :of Sterling Heights, 215 N.4t.2d 179 (tlich {1 741 <br /> (court declined to "second ques-s" local governing body absent showing that the <br /> body` acted arbitrarily or capriciously) .. <br /> -End Footnotes- .. � _ _ - - - -1*'2D 1 <br /> Curiously, these court o p i a orfs often did, no, . b0ther to meat on exactly what <br /> provision of the Constitution was violated. Perhaps that explains why for many <br /> years a landowner's sole relief in a constitutional challenge based ,.oh a land <br /> use :requlation was tnvalidati06 of the regulation. See, e.q., Agins v. City cif <br /> Tiburon, 598 P.2d 25T 28 (cal. 1+19791 , aff'd, 447 U.S, 255 419801 The p. <br /> constitutional; alternative provided by the fifth Amendment of upholdfnq an <br /> averly-irltruStvL requ ation by ltreatinq it as a lawful talon4 re uiring u t <br /> cn pensation was not an issue that attracted judicial. at: tion. <br /> k <br /> 8egi�nninq tt„1976, the Supreme Court, re <br /> -Yentered the debate about whet( <br /> requ atL ft went '°tod fir, and whether the remedy was limited to 00.clar.inq <br /> invalidity or Whether the reguiatzan could be upheld in exchange for ;dust <br /> compensation. ..In Penn Central transportation Co. v. New. York city, 438 U.S. 104 <br /> (197.81 , theouct addressed the first issue: when does a re�qulata+ry taking <br /> ogpur. Nalmes' frxrarulat.i'on gave gray to a more elaborate __ but perhaps no more <br /> certain -- three factor;aoalysis: "the character of the governmental action,” , <br /> C ;21.1the '"ect.),ri :ic impact of the regulation on the claimant," and the "extent. <br /> Zi which the reqalation has interferedV`s�ith distinct inves:tment-back(. <br /> expectations,,' Id. at 124. No taking was found in that. case sa the aecrartd ;issue,. <br /> re lfeby, Was not:: ad:dres`sed. ti; tc <br /> subsequently .the Court on four separate occasions accepted but then ford <br /> various procedural reasons rex acted the opportunity to deffnttively establish <br /> whether, as a Witter of'federal constitutional law, an overly-intrusive <br /> ..regulation. entitled rite ;prflperiy cawner to just compensation for whatever period <br /> the r'equlat#an was to effect: See Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U..S. 255 (19801; Sart <br /> Tliego Gas & 3:ecr Co. v San. Diego 450 U.S. 621 (19811.a Willi<am5on County; <br /> Regional P19noinq Cn 'n Y. HaMiltt� <br /> mmn Bank, 473 U.S. 112 (15851 ; MacDonald.,`; s <br /> Somer 8 F rates v. Yolo .County; 477 U.S. 340 (1986) <br /> k <br /> AFq* <br /> LEXW:`9NitXiS't <br /> 9 <br /> NEX� <br /> LEXIS <br /> I Y <br />