|
&dsion in -Fahoe-$i~'r'ra Preservation Counci~ [nc. v. Tahoe
<br /> P~nningAg~qz 2002 ~ 65~31 (April 23, 2002).
<br /> The case involves ~o development moratoria [n the
<br />
<br /> and rte second running beegeen Aug~r 1~83 and April
<br /> !.984, ~or a coc~ or ~_ months. There w~ gener~ agreement
<br />
<br />pristine quali~ ~ deteriorated rapidly during the ~r 40
<br />7ear~, in large part because of the increased runoff and
<br />sedimentation from development ~ctiviries la ~e L~e T~oe
<br />Bain. T~e moratoria were enacted r0 give the planning
<br />agent/rime to prep~e and adopt a ~lan co stop the
<br />
<br />d~iv/, described by M~Ic Twin in Roughing [r ~ "nor
<br />merely transparent, bur dazzlingly, brilliandy so."
<br /> In 1969, Congress-approved x c~mpacr beaten Californ[g
<br />~d Nemda, creanng the T~oe Region~ Pl~ning
<br />(T~A), ~d ~signed ~e ~enm/~e r~ponsibili~
<br />coordinate and regulate development in ~e B~in and m
<br />cohere im naeur~ resomcm.' UnBrrunacely, ~e
<br />conrinuedko deteriorate, md CMiBrnia pulled im fin~ciM
<br />support from T~A ~d u~larer~ly adopted more stringent
<br />development regulario~ for i~ side of &e lake.
<br /> ~ 1980, Congr~ ~d Pr~idenr Jify C~ signed ~
<br />men,eno to &e comp~ ~ar reqmred, ~ong o&er ~in~,
<br />~A devetop regionfl "enviromen~ &r~hold
<br />mpadri~" ~br addr~ing "sr~ Br ~r q~i~,. ¢~rer
<br />sou covme~adon, vqem~on pr~eva~on, ad no~e." ~e
<br />~ended compa~ ~so r~ognized &e need Bra development
<br />mommd~ md ~ve~A a dm~ne (May 1, i983) to complete
<br />iu study md adopt ~e pl~. ~e dec~ion not~ ~ac even ~e
<br />proper~ ownea in ~e T~oe Ba~ ac~ow[edge ~ar T~A
<br />worked in "~od ~ md ro ~e b~r of ira abiE~" m prep~e ~e
<br />plm bur w= unable ro m~t ~e dm~ine. ~ a rm~t, ~A
<br />adopted ~e e~o mom~oda ~enged N ~ ~e, prohibiting ~1
<br />construction on cem~n semifive l~ N ~e T~oe B~in, wh~e
<br />finmhed wor~g on ~e
<br /> A number ofproper~ owners in ~e T~oe B~in (and ~e
<br />T~oe Sierra Prme~adon Co~t, a nonprofir or~izarion)
<br />stated leg~ action a~nsr T~A ~mo~r immediately in 1984,
<br />claim)ny ~a~ ~e moratoria comrimred a =c~ngs" under ~e
<br />Fi~ ~endmenr of ~e U.S. Constitution, whmh says:
<br />
<br /> "nor ~h~l private proper~ be ~en for public me, wi~our jus~
<br /> compen=adon"
<br />
<br /> Clearly, if the ciw or stare takes someone's [and ro build a
<br />communiw park or stare highway, ~or example, ~e7
<br />required ~o pay the properw owner compensation. Less clear
<br />is the case when the ci~ or sram adopts a regulation that
<br />prevents a properW owner from ~ing the properW = the
<br />person wishes. %n years ago, in ~ucas = South Carolina
<br />OasraFOunciL 505 U.S. 1003(1992), the U.S. Supreme
<br />Court fashioned a dear-cur rule that, if the regulation rakes
<br />all economically viable use groin :he propers, ~ ir did From
<br />David Luc='s beacMSonr properw, the regulation
<br />unconstitutional and r~e government must pay the properw
<br />owner ~Br rte reguiarory raking.
<br /> Bur what happens if the regulation :akin ail the v~ue only
<br />temporarily, as in ~he cue of a moratorium? The Tahoe proper~
<br />owners ~ked the Court co ex~end the-per se caregoric~ rule
<br />~}om ~tcas~ moratoria in general, urging ~e Court ro
<br />consider c~,e tempor~ s{ice o( their properw representing only
<br />rte time during whtch rte moratoria were in effect.
<br />
<br /> in response, the Justices considered O.e practical imptkatiom-
<br /> of such a Ending, noting
<br />
<br /> Land-use regulations are ubiquitous and mnsr oi: them impact
<br /> property values in nome tangential way---.o£ten in completely
<br /> unanticipated w'.ays. Treating them all a~ per se talangs would
<br /> u'ansr%rm governm~r r%-mlafion into a luxury few governments
<br /> could afford.
<br />
<br /> The Justice also concluded cb, ar :he approach snug& '~'a~ too
<br /> narrow, stating:
<br />
<br /> An imere~r in rea/property i~ defined by the mete: and bounds
<br /> de~cribe iu geographic dimensions and the term o(years chat dexcrib~
<br /> rte t~nporal aspect of the owner's intere~[. Both dimensions rnu~ be
<br /> considered ifc. he interest i~ ro be viewed in ir~ ChUte .fy'.
<br />
<br /> ~md they worried chat such a decision might impair che
<br />qualir7 of :he decision-rook/ny process, noting:.
<br /> A rule that required compensauon For every de{ay in the u~e o£
<br /> property, would tender routine government processes prohibitively
<br /> e..'cperzsive or encourage hasty decision-making.
<br /> and:
<br /> Since a categorical rule ded to the length of ddiberarions would
<br /> likely create added pressure on decisionrnakers to teach a quick
<br /> resolution of [and-use questions, it would only serve ro
<br /> disadvantage those landowners and interest groups who are not aa
<br /> o%~.nized or/'arruliar wi& the planning process.
<br />
<br /> In Tahoe-Sierra, the Court dosed the door co a categorical per
<br />se taking in che moratorium context and, in the proc=s, We a
<br />ringing endorsement of the value of planning and the
<br />importance of community involvement in shaping
<br />communities. The major/? opinion dearly says each'
<br />moratorium must be judged on its own merits, weighing all
<br />relevant factors such as the government's purpose for enacting.
<br />the moratorium, the duration of the moratorium, and r. he
<br />impact on the property owner's expectations, commonly referred
<br />to az the ad hoc Penn Central test. (Penn On=al Trarap. Co. v.
<br />New Fork Off, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).) Ifa majority of:he
<br />Justices had accepted the propertT 0where' contention, it would
<br />have sounded the death knell to mocacoria, instead, the opinion
<br />underscores the need for a thoughrful, inclusive planning
<br />process that rak= into account all srakeixoiders, present and
<br />future, property owners, and interest groups a/ike.
<br /> Edkor's note: The .American ?lanning ,~sociation, in
<br />partnership with the National Trust for Historic Preservation,
<br />filed an amicm brief in :his cate.
<br />
<br />Lora £ucero, esq., is A.PA's ~-raff arrorney and rte editor of Land Use
<br />Law & Zoning Digest.
<br />
<br />[omng tVewt is a monthly newsletter published by th: American Planning ,Msociation. -'
<br />Sub~criptian~ are ;tvailable far $60 (U,S.,} and $82 (fo~ci~nl. W. ¢a~ ~armer, ~tc~, ~utiw
<br />Oir~cror: William ~ ~cin, alC~', Oircmar of
<br />
<br />gvning Newt is produced ar APA. Jim Schwab. ,ucc'. and MicMcl Oavi~on. gdimm ~.~.
<br />alc~, Hcarhcr Campbell. Fay Oolnic~ Note Hurch~on, San jay Jeer..~c,. Mcan kcwis.
<br />Ma~ Martin'. alCl'. Lynn Koss, Kupucce~; Shcmc Matthews..~sisma~ ~dicor: LNa 8~u :~
<br />O~,g, ~md Producnon.
<br />Copyright (~201}2 by Ameu~n Planning ~ocia~ion. [22S. Michigan Ave.. Sui[c I600.
<br />Ch~$o. [L 60603. The Amman PJannin~ ,~mcJ~ion a~o h~ o(fic~ at L776
<br />Ave., N.W.. W~hingmn. DC 20036: ,.~.planning.org
<br />,~l right~ r~e~ed. No part of thia puhli~nan may he reproduced or utilized in any form or
<br />any rowans, clectromc ur mechani~l, including plmtocapving recording, or by any
<br />
<br />Prmt~ on recycled paper, including 50-70% r~vcl~ fiber
<br />
<br /> I
<br />'1
<br />I
<br /> I
<br /> !
<br /> I
<br />
<br /> ·
<br />
<br /> I
<br />
<br />
<br />
|