|
LandOWner
<br /> rights' ruling -
<br /> ., sets.!'stage
<br /> ,,f6' uit§
<br /> · " , ..... r'.,~
<br /> Many details left to":
<br /> subsequent
<br /> cases :..,
<br /> Associated Press · ', , 9 -*
<br />
<br /> Washington, D.C~ ' ':' '
<br /> .... ;: ~,.~
<br /> An avalanche of new lawsuits is pre,".',:
<br /> dieted by both those delighted and.
<br /> those disappointed by a Supreme' ~.~
<br /> Court ruling thal government must'~:
<br /> pa), property owners when it denies
<br /> them full usc oflheir land.
<br />
<br /> Now, ~t s a lot of litigation," said";
<br /> Joyce Holmes Benjamin, a lawyer'?i
<br /> who represents the National League
<br /> of Cities and the National Associa-("i
<br /> lion of Count es. "We had hoped the ~:.,~
<br /> court would reach a differenl conclu:'~'
<br /> s~on but we 11 know more about the
<br /> decision's impact after we run a
<br /> more cases through." . .
<br /> .... i'
<br /> Gus Bauman of the National AssoCi,!~?
<br /> ation of Home Builders agreed thai'":'.i
<br /> the ruling enhancing property rights'::'~
<br /> will have to be fleshed out by !ower.'.--;
<br /> .~ courts. But, he added, "For the aver-%a
<br /> age homeowners and lot owners, this' %::
<br /> decision means that the fight they-.'-.:~
<br /> have to own and use their and ha~",'..!
<br /> been strengthened enormously.", '
<br />
<br /> · , .... ·
<br /> ;By a 6-3 vote the high court said ::
<br /> landowners must be compensated':,,
<br /> 'when government regulalions bar..L~
<br /> them, even temporarily, from using
<br /> their property.
<br />
<br /> Thc~cot~rt"said regulations such as .....
<br /> zoning ordinances that impose
<br /> limits on an owner's use of land mayl;-::
<br /> amount to a "taking" for which the.'~
<br /> Constitution requires "just
<br /> 'i sation." And the court said that corn-' ,~:
<br />-: pensalion may be required even
<br /> ·the "taking" is not permanent...
<br />· i The d~:cision's full' impact ' **":"~
<br /> : may' not: :-
<br /> 'i be evident for some years. It left':;i':
<br /> ~ numerous questions unanswered.
<br /> ,
<br /> · : One. 'key:' question, remaining
<br />
<br /> , Ruling continued on page 26S . ·
<br /> ...: ~... ..... · .....
<br />
<br /> nu,,ng Continued from page 23S .- .-:::..: : ,. ,.~
<br /> whether a local government's deci- The court never has.beefi'able to nat'.
<br /> sion' to""downzone" property -~--- down a definition of "taking," lear.
<br /> from commercial to residential, Or t6;,-~ lng thai determihati0ii..up to lowe~
<br /> require larger tot sizes for homes, for ' courts on a case-by.,-gase basis.
<br /> example -- ever can amount to a,. :': ":~- ::':~;' . ~t... ?~,,.:,. ~,,.:
<br /> "taking" that requires compensation. Th~"Consfitu"fl'6fi's Fifth Amendraem
<br /> Another unresolved question,is says "private propertj, (shall no0 be
<br /> whether compensation eyeL may..:.be''~' taken 'for'public ::Use' wi?out 'jfisl
<br /> required for ,regulations irnpbied' fo~..,.3compensation." A "taking', most of-
<br /> public safety. ' "" ~' '=' ' ':'.~ --
<br /> :'.,~t'." ",; ten has meant condemnation pti.
<br /> · ., ' ~;'.' ': .'. -' ' Vate land being, bought by the gov.
<br />Major developers hailed ihi~ dec'iiiori,': eminent for'public uses. 'But in re-
<br />calling it the most importfinitland;'{' Cent ye-ars.; e~..~' have seemed more
<br />-decision since zoning w~i~ declared :' 'willing t0:re~'o~i~ize that:'some land.
<br />constitutional in 1926. "It is recogni- use regulations can have the same
<br /> tion by our nation's highest court effect as public ownership.
<br /> th/at under the Constitution land
<br />owners are entitled to compensation.~ The Supreme,Court' had said as
<br />when their land is made useless by() much, but bef6re last' Tuesday had
<br />zoning, planning, environmental and':-'.: not ruled that compensation is con-
<br />other land-use restrictions," said'5 stitutionally required in such 'cases.
<br />James Fischer,'homebuilders associa- "And the court had never before said
<br />tion president. '--'-:: "that even temporarL/land-use restric-
<br /> . .//c::-.: . .-. tions ma), amount to a taking that
<br />
<br /> Local government groups; however, requires compensation.- .:
<br /> complained that it will substantially ' : ..:. '~ :;: i .. J !:: · ,-
<br />curtail their ability to set community" 'l:}~e decision made. clear, that onCe
<br />standards. Lee Ruck, general counsel some court has found that an owner's
<br />for the national counties group, said land' was "token'? by a regulation,
<br />the ruling was a blow to community: ' government officials ma)' amend the
<br />supervision of development. "It has regulation, withdraw it' or buy the
<br />the potential of being a real disaster , property. But whatever the govern-
<br />'for alt land-use control of alllevels of--- nlent does, it wilt have to compen-
<br />local state, even fe~deral, govern, sate the owner for the time between
<br /> merits," he said. "' when the regulation tofk effect and
<br /> · .~ _::,.-..: the finding that it was a raking,
<br />
<br />
<br />
|