07/07/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Minneapolis Star and Tribune Established 1867 Roger Parkinson Publisher and President Joel R. Kramer Executive Editor Tim J. McGuire Managing Editor Robert J. White Editorial Editor 14A Tuesday/June 16/1987 Raising the price for land-use control In his classic and often wry look at "The Zoning Game," author-attorney Richard Babcock ob- serves that "there lurks in many a lawyer a sneak- ing suspicion that the substance and procedure of zoning ... is a violation of somebody's constitu- tional rights." The question supposedly was re- solved in 1926 when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that government can use its police power to control land use. But a Supreme Court ruling last week could severely limit the regulation of land ~yen. for the best of reasons. The' court didn't reverse the constitutionality of Zoning and other land-use controls. But it did say that when government restrictions "deny a land- owner all use of his property" -- even temporarily "the Fifth Amendment requires that damages be paid.. Compensation for denial of all use is a reasonable principle. But legal experts worry that the decision opens the way to compensation for lesser restrictions. If they prove right, many efforts to control land use would be unaffordable and therefore impractical. And that could seriously harm orderly growth, conservation, and protection of Public health and safety. The ruling settled a California case in which a ban on flood-plain development prohibited any use of the property. But The principle involved might apply as well to partial restrictions, such as down- ZOning or a building code, that reduce a property's value. The uncertainty is expected to trigger exten- sive litigation on a wide variety of land-use con- trols around The country. One that might be tested is the prohibition in the Twin Cities area on urban-density development beyond the Metropoli- tan Urban Services Area line drawn by the Metro- politan Council. Until now, a landowner's right to compensation was generally limited to cases in which govern- ment actually took title to the property. Some land-use controls may, indeed, have the effect of a taking that requires compensation. But govern- ment has the obligation to protect the public interest by regulating the use of land and the timing, location and standards for its develop- ment. Prop'erly applied, zoning and other land-use controls can protect lives, avert conflicts, preserve the environment, enhance the quality of life and make public services more efficient. The court's ruling tacitly acknowledges ail of this, yet by its new ruling threatens to undermine the governmental land-use authority it approved in 1926. Much will depend on what happens to the deluge of further cases that seem certain to flow out of this one. One way leads to a reasonable balance between individual and community fights on land-use issues. The other way leads back to the bad old days of uncontrolled growth and land speculation.