Agenda - Council - 04/28/2009 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Memorandum to Ramsey City Council . March 25, 2009 , Page 2 enjoyment of the property and that such invasion resull!l in. a definite Il!ld m.easurable diminutiDJl of 1he mll!ket value of the property.". rei. There must be a repeated, aggre~ and reasonable probabili1y ,that the conditions will continue. rd. , . In the 2004 Minnesota Court of Appeals unpublished case of Mark Miskowiec, et aI. vs. City , . . . of Oak Grove, the Court regarding our neighboring City of Oak Grove held as follows: Both the federai and state constitution forbid tl?-e taking of private property for public , .' use without just CQmpeDSll1ion. U.S: Cons!. 5" Amerui; MimI. Cons!. art. I, ~ 3. . While "thetakiJ.lgs clause originally applied'only to physical appropriations of property, the, U.S. Supreme Court recognized that regulations on property may also be considered. takings if the regulation goes '~o far." Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, (1922) (citations omitted). in determining whether. a regUlation goes "too far," the U.S. SUl?reme Court has . . . . . recognized two distinct classes of regulatory takings; (1) categorical takings, in wbi~h the regulation "denies all. economically beneficial or productive use of land,~' under Lucas v. South Carolina. Coa~tal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, (1992) (citatio~ omitted); and (2) case-specific takings, which involve consideration of the eCOP-onllC impact of 1he ",gulatioD, the interference wi1h reasonable in'veitmeolrbaCked expectations. and . the character of the regulation. Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City afNew York, 438 U.S,. . . . 104, (1978) (citations omitted); !!eealso Agins v. City ofTiburon, 447 p.S. 255, (1980) (citations omitted.). In Minnesota, landowners s~king to compel inverse condemnatio~ have the burden' . of jJlOViIig a t8king has occurred. Vern 1/eJllWlds Conitr., Inc. v. City of Cliamplin, 539N.W.2d 614,617 (Minn. App. 1995), review denied (Minn. Dec. 20~ 1995). As defined;in Lucas cited above, application of subsection 9.26.06 does not appear to be a "caieguricaI" or unqualified taking as implementation of the regulation does not baveihe elfuct of . pe<Jllllllell!lY denying a .property owner. of "all economic beneficial uses" of bisIber property. pj:esnmably wi1h the wetland buffer in place, 1he propertY still has several produciive uses including . .' . recreational, wetland access and general open spaces uses as suggested in the Oak Grove case. . t. -ztW 0-'