07/07/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

landowners' rights High court strengthens - 3, ssociated Press The court said' that compensation him custody. ' void an extradition order from an- Washington, D.C. In a major property-rights decision, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that landowners must be compensat- ed when government regulations bar them, even temporarily, from using thcir property. The court, by a 6-3 vote, said regula- tions such as zoning ordinances that impose new limits on an owner's use Of land may amount to a "taking" for which the Constitution requires "just compensation." Court Continued from page lA One-key question the decision left unanswered is whether a local gov- ernment's decision to "downzonc" property -- from commercial to resi- dential or to require larger lot sizes for homes, for example -- ever can amount to a taking that requires compensation. Another unregolved question is whether compensation ever may be required for regulations imposed for public safely. ;'I don't use the term 'landmark' loosely but this is a landmark -- the court's most important land-use deci- sion in over 50 years," said Gus Bauman for the National Association of Home Builders. "'For the average homeowners and lot owners, this decision means the fight they have to own and use their land has been strengthened enor- mously,'' Bauman said. "The mes- sage to local zoning officials is clear -- you may have to pay for interfer- ing with that righL" Joyce Holmes Benjamin, a lawyer who represents the National Associa- · lion of Counties, the National League of Cities and other govern- mental organizations, called the deci- sion disappointing. "Now, it's a lot of litigation," she said. "We'll know more about the decision's impact after.we run a few more cases through." The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says "private properly (shall not) be taken for public use without just 'compensation." 7A taking most often has meant con- : demnation, private land being .bought by the government for public uses. But in recent years, courts have ~ seemed more willing to recognize ! that some land-use regulations can have the same effect as public owner- may be required even if the taking not permanent. The decision in a case fi'om Califor- nia represents a victory for landown- ers and the real estate and home- building industries. It was a getback for state and local zoning officials. In another ruling the Court said that a San Bernardino, Calif., man must be returned to Louisiana to face charges that he kidnapped his two daughters, even though he had earlier won a California cou. rt order granting The ruling comes after nearly seven years of legal fighting between Rich- ard Smollin and his former wife, Ju- dith. Both won custody orders in their own slates, without informing the other sides of what they were doing. In 1984, fed up with the slow judicial pace, Smollin and his father went to Louisiana and picked up the children, ~ Jennifer and Jamie, at a school bus stop. In their ruling, the justices rejected the right of a court in one state to other. Without trying to decide who is right or wrong, they said only that the extradition agreements among the states require that the father face the charges that' were duly filed against him in Louisiana. Full imPact of the land-use case may not be evident for some years. Law- yers for both sides agreed the ruling left many questions unanswered, and will spark many new lawsuits. Court COntinued on page 8A ship. Thc Supreme Court had said as much, but before yesterday had not ruled that compensation is constitu- tionally required in such cases. Its new ruling also marked the first time the court said even temporary land-use restrictions may amount to a taking requiring compensation. "Temporary takings which ... deny a landowner all use of his property are not different in kind from perma- nent takings, for which the Constitu- tion clearly requfres compensation," Chief Justice William Rehnquist wrote for the court. · "We merely hold that where the gov- ernment's activities have already worked a taking of all use of proper- ty, no subsequent action can relieve it of the duty to provide compensa- tion for the period during which the taking was effective," Rehnquist said. The decision made clear' that once some court has found that an owner's land was "taken" by a regulation, government officials may amend the regulation, withdraw it or buy the property. But whatever the govern- ment does, it will have to compen- sate the owner for the time between the regulation took effect and the finding that it was a taking. Several Minnesota and Twin City area officials, though most hadn't seen the decision, said they're con- cerned it could have dramatic effects on governmental planning. The state Attorney General's Office joined with the state of California in a .friend of the court brief supporting the Los Angeles County position. State officials fear the decision could obstruct governments' ability to re- strict land use for environmental or development purposes, said Rick Slowes, assistant solicitor general in the State Attorney General's Office. "It opens up what we see as a can of worms, not only for the state, but for local governments," Slowes said. "Historically, land-use planning and zoning has not entitled landowners to compensation. It's going to make it more difficult to do the kind of plan- ning they've been doing." The California dispute stems from an attempt by the First English Evan- gelical Lutheran Church of Glendale to collect compensation from Los Angeles County. The Glendale church used to operate a camp, called Lutherglen, on 21 acres it owns in the mountains north of Los Angeles. Forest fires in the summer of 1977 burned off much of the vegetation at the camp, and heaw rains the following year caused flooding that leveled the camp's buildings. Los Angeles County subsequently en- acted an interim ordinance that effec- tively prohibiied reconstruction of the buildings destroyed. State courts threw out the church's lawsuit against the county after seem- ingly assuming that the flood plain regulation was a "taking" and ruling that California law denies any com- pensation. .. · · Yesterday's decision said California law cannot deny compensation for such takings, but sent the case back to the state courts for further study. Rehnquist was joined by Justices William J. Brennan, Byron R. White, 'Thurgood Marshall, Lewis F. Powell and Antonin Scalia. Justices John Paul Stevens, Harts' A. Blackmun arid Sandra Day O'Con- nor dissented.