Agenda - Council - 02/25/1997 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

02/20/~? 17:10 LR~ OFFICES 2140 4TH RUE ~ 612 427 5543 N0.~34 Memorandum Page 3 not deny the plaintiff of "all property and therefore not a automatic total taking. economically viable use" of its Fifth Amendment "categorical" or However, the Woodbur~ Court went on to hold that even though a total taking had not occurred, a compensable temporary taking is possible. A compensable taking is discussed by the U.S. Supreme Court in peD_n Central Transp~ Co. v. City of New York, A38 (1978). The Supreme Court held that the factors used in determining a compensable taking are: The economic impact of the regulation (the moratorium) on the claimant; (2) The extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations; and (3) The character of the government regulations. There is no set formula for determining when a compensable temporary taking occurs and each case musg be examined on a case by case basis, using the above factors. The Woodbury case was remanded to the District Court for consideration of compensable damages. The parties then settled the case and no new Court action was undertaken. Zn summary, the City does have the authority to adopt an interim development moratorium. In adopting the moratorium, the City musg do so for lawful planning purposes and may not act in an arbitrary manner in order to delay or prevent a single project. In addition, while the moratorium may be adopted, it is possible that a developer could establish that the delay caused by the moratorium is a compensable temporary taking and therefore be awarded damages from the City. I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I