02/03/87 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

-5- The "Taking" Issue. It is possible for a local governmental unit to enact an ordinance which is so prohibitive that it renders a piece of property useless. When this level of regulation becomes so onerous, a property owner can argue that he has been deprived of the use of his property by the regulation and that in effect the governmental unit has taken his property from him and failed to compensate him for its value. This "taking" argument is one very frequently heard by planning COmlnissions and city councils. Books have been written about how far a government may go with regulation before it has "taken" ~,roperty. The current standard in the State of Minnesota is that no taking" has occurred under a zoning ordinance so long as the landowner has a reasonable use of his property under the zoning ordinance. The issue then becomes what is a reasonable use? Historically, the Minnesota Supreme Court and most state courts have been very liberal in interpreting what a reasonable use is. So long as some use has remained, they have usually upheld local ordinances. In the Minnesota case, Sanderson v. City of Wilmar, 162 N.W.2d 494 {1968), the court found that the ~-ity-s 'o~inance constituted a taking of property and invalidated it. In this case, the city zoned a specific piece of property in the downtown area by placing it in a district allowing only automobile parking as a permitted use. The ordinance further required that not only was the property use restric~ted to parking lot, but the owner was required to give the city the first option to buy the land, should the owner wish to sell. The Minnesota Supreme Court found that this zoning ordinance substantially decreased the value of the land, and determined that the city was trying to extract a public benefit from the landowner through this regulation. The court held that if the city wanted such a benefit, they would have to pay for it, and invalidated the ordinance. Generally, the fact that an ordinance greatly diminishes the value of land does not give rise to a taking. There is abundant case law which holds that so long as there is a remaining economic use, value reduction in itself does not give rise to a taking. In some cases, the value of property has been reduced as much as 75 to 90 percent from that which it might have for another use, and courts have held that no taking has taken place. Recent cases in Minnesota suggest that the Minnesota Supreme Court may be taking a slightly more conservative viewpoint of taking than it has in the past. In State by Powderly v. Erickson Diversified Corporation, 285 N.W.2d 84 (1979), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that no constitutional .taking of property without just compensation took place when Erickson was prevented from demolishing some historic rowhouses in Red Wing. The court so held because no evidence was admitted establishing that the value of the property might decrease if Erickson was not allowed to demolish the rowhouses. But the court suggested that the standard it has applied to determine taking was ,. ~:~.~,er alt effective u~.~ ..... of the ~r~p~:'t:/.~. . .was ~,,~'--~'. ,e~u~ or ~f, the , ,,~qc.r' iS riot permi ....... J '-" ~._.., ~,, obtain a investament. The court went on to say ~na~ ~ne'~'~-~a¥'n¥-e-~¥d'ence in the record that the cost of renovation of the rowhouses was so high