Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/04/2007

Home

September 15, 2007 I Volume 1 I No. 18 Peters asked for compensation and an inju..TJ.ction "CO prevent the village from discharging any materials through drainage tiles on his property. The village asked the court to dismiss the case, arguing that it was not ripe for review because Peters had not sought compensation through the appropriate state channels. The district court agreed with the village and found in its favor without a trial. Peters appealed; ultimately, the case was argued before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Decision: Affirmed. The takings clause of the Fifth Amendment provided that no "pri- vate property [shall] be taken for public use, without just compensa- tion." The 7th Circuit noted that, "[w]hile it corrfinp.[ed] the State's authorit}' to confiscate private property, the text of the Fifth Amend- ment impose[d] two conditions on the exercise of such authority: the taking must be for a 'public use' and 'just compensation' must be paid to the owner." No constitutional violation occurred until just compensation has been denied. Therefpre, a property owner could not claim a violation ~f the just compensation clause until he or she sought and been denied compensation under available state court procedures. Ifa property own- er demonstrated that state procedures for obtaining just compensation were either unavailable or inadequate, the claim was immediately ripe in federal court. Peters contended that the village's sanitary drainage system was il- legal and unauthorllied. He argued further that the village had no power of eminent domain over his property. Eminent domain gives the govern- ment the authority to take private land for public use. Because of its non-home rule status, the village could not perform an it-werse condem- nation aCTIon, and, therefore, there was no inverse condemnation reme- dy available to him. Because of this, Peters argued, the case was ripe for federal review and should not have been dismissed by the district court. The 7th Circuit stated that: "It [was] entirely beside the point to say that even though our bill of rights assure[dj every person that his [or her] property [would] not be taken for public use without just compenc sation, yet where a count}' or other public body violate[d]this section by taking private property without condemnation proceedings, one [could] notrecover simply because the Legislature. ..failed to provide any specif- ic remedy. If this were true, the constitutional guaranty would be nuga- tory and private property could be taken with impurrit}' and without re- dress to the injured property owner. The constitutional provision itself, without remedial legislation, [was] basic law, which not only confer[red] a right but presuppose[d] a remedy." 5 51