Laserfiche WebLink
<br />, Memorandum to Ramsey City Council <br />March 25, 2009' <br />Page 3 <br /> <br />However, a landowner wh.os~ ,propefo/ is subjected to the yvetland buffer regulation may be <br />, able to claim a case specifiq regu.1atbrytaldng, also as discussed in the Lucas case~ As stated in Lucas <br />. .. - . .. ' ". <br /> <br />and the 2003 Minnesota Supreme Court case of Johnson v. City of Minneapolis, 667 N.yv.2d 109 <br />, ' . <br /> <br />~ 2003), anything less than a complete taking ofpropeI'o/ requir~s the balancing test se~ forth in <br />ienn Central Supm. ~s ,test requires the court to consider: ' <br /> <br />1. The econoinicimpact of the regulation on the claimant; <br /> <br />2. 'the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct ip.vestment-backed <br />expectations; and <br /> <br />~. The character of the govenunentreguIation. <br /> <br />,Penn Cent. Transp. Co. Supra <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />, " <br />, In deciding whether a particular governmental action has effected a taking, this court focuses": . . on <br />the character ofth~ a:ction and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the' parcel as a <br />whole." 1d. <br /> <br />In summary, it is my opinion tllat the City Code subsection 926.06 subd. 9. is not <br /> <br />. .' . <br /> <br />categorically or per 'se unconstitutiorial, as all economically ''$ble ~es of the property will nqt, be <br />. ' <br /> <br />taken as a r~su1t of implementation of the said subsection. , <br /> <br />With that said, however, it is possible that a landowner's case spec~c facts could derp.onstrate <br />that a, regulatory taking has occurred and inverse conqemnation shou1~ be ordered by the 'court.' 111e <br />factors 'the court will cpnsider in making such a determination are those referenced in the Johnson ' <br />6a.s~ dted above. Johnson 'V. lv.fpls. Supra. <br /> <br />-14;~ - <br />