SITE INFORMATION AND CORRESPONDENCE

Home Browse Search

` Se vic es of Mead Data Central, I= PAGE 10 (' 1991 UIS. App. LEXIS 30233, x;21 , } In the Sap Diego Gas: case, the Court Game close to decidinq the issue.'°Four Justices were of the view, expressed in strong terms by Justice Brennan, that ; ttieConstitution meant what it!isaid a taking, whether regulatory or physical, mandated that the property E*223< towner be paid just compensation. After-the-fact invalidation' of;J the offending regulation would not 'satisfy, the constitutional: mandate. Chief Justice-Rehnquist indicated JusticeBrennan was right but the case was wror q, r F finally the issue was resolved in 1987 in First Enslish Evange. ica1 Lutheran Church v-, Los Angnle County; 482 U.S. 304 (19871 . The requlatipn at issue prevented the ;landowner from rebuilding, after a flood destro. ed buildings"on the property . n-cell.t"e complaint dad alleged and the California Court ..of Appeal$ de;cision: udder review had assumed a taking* the Court treated the question( of whether a requlatary:: taking. :had occurred as a given. Id. at 312 " The state arqued that the landowner's remedy could be l.;imited by state,'law simply to a de'fierminat on of vel. fifty of the uncompensated requlatory enactment<, onxy if the state insisted on enforcement after the regulation was ;judicially determined to require compensation would compensatloh be due.. The Supreme„Corea(. rejected that :reading of the Fifth Amendment.. The Constitutiah., said the Court, requires ; tlSt ctn�pensaton fora regulatory taktnq from the date It occurs unti.i thO: date c 233 of the req lAtion's rescission or amendment.: 4 for purposes ,of this opinion we need not explore in detail the various artioulatons of what constitutes a regulatory takinq that have emended from the ' case's both before and after Penn Central and First Lutheran Church. 0 ouch i.nK has ";flowed in attempts to critique and explain. n8 The Supreme Court itself likes to point out that no set��formula exists to determine whether compensation is: constitutionally due for a government restriction of property; instead !the court must epgiL "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries.” See Penn Central, 438 U.S. at 124; First Lutheran Church, 482 U.S at 426. But at bottom what emerges is at least the basic notion that the government, under the quise,of requlation, cannot take from alproperty owner the core economic value of the property, leaving the owner with a mete shell of shambled expectations. n9 r _t - - - - -- _ -- - - - ;: - 4130tnotes- - - _ - _ _ _ _ - l .. _ _ t r 7 Compare Perot Central. Transportation Co. v.: New fork City, 438 U.S. 1Q4'. 1 124 ;(1978) (zoning regulation worked no compensable takinq despite the enormous economic 'setback to the owner '-- the Court distinguished between the "character of; the government :action," i,e the physical invasion aspect, from other interferences which "ar;iSe l from some public program adlustinq the :benefits arid: bUrcdens of economic life top romote the common good.u) with Ruckelshaus v Non 'ahtp Co.,, 467 U..5. 986 (1`984) trequlation requiring cotq arty to discltl5e data to' gaverrsment and government's;subsequent disclosure :may gonSt%tote a taking; factors to be const.>de ed lr� .Ue company's investment-backed expectations.; canditiitns under which data was disclosed to government aril govirnment'S leg3:timate interest in bisclosinq data) and keystone Bitue:inaus. Coal Ass"'n. Y. De enedictis, 4� U.S. 470 C19B71 (regulation requiring a percentage of coal be .1 f.t in place far surface support is not a takin'q where there was a. publi purpose end rte showing pf dim.16ution of value in land') . 1243 Ka i1er� Land-us requilations, rationality and Judicial review. 718 See, e•Q:.i s Thi kvo in the ,Piollan. invi l ation (Part 13 ,, 23 tlrb. Law. 301 (.1991) Minda1 the: dileemmas of property and sovereignty id the postmodern era. The regulatory r {. s i l