Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Memorandum to Ramsey City Council <br />March 25, 2009 <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />However, a landowner whose .prope~ is subjected to the wetland buffer regulation may be <br />able to claim a case specifiQ regulatory taking, also as discussed in the Lucas case~ As stated in Lucas <br />and the 2003 Minnesota Supreme Court case of Johns~:m v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.yv.2d 109 <br />~. 2003), anything less than a complete taking of property req~s the balancing test s~t foi.1h in <br />Penn Central Supra. This test requires the court to consider: . <br /> <br />1. The econoinic impact of the regulation on the claimant; <br /> <br />2. . The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct illvestment-backed <br />expectations; and <br /> <br />3. The character of the government regulation. <br />. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. Supra <br /> <br />In deciding whether a particular governmental action has effected a taking, this court focuses ": . . on <br />the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the' parcel as a <br />whole." Id. <br /> <br />ill summary, it is my opinion 1:4at the City Code subsection 9.26.06 subd. 9. is not <br />categorically or per se unconstitutional, as all economically viable ~es of the property will not be <br />taken as a result of implementation of the said subsection. <br /> <br />With that said, however, it is possible that a lando\vner's case specific facts could demonstrate <br />that a regulatory taking has occmred. and inverse conqemnation should be ordered by the court. The <br />factors the court will consider in making such a determination are those referenced in the Johnson <br />case cited above. Johnson v. Mpls. Supra. <br /> <br />~. <br /> <br />41 <br />