01/04/1988 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

would. not have been put but for the influx of people into the community to occupy the subdivision lots. "009 Professor Johnston concludes the same and. states: "Clearly, the nonsubdivid.er is entitled to compensation for his land. when it is converted to street, park, or other public use. Why should. the subdivider be excluded from this guaran- tee? As implied by the excise-tax rationale of trord.an v. Village of Menomonee Fallsg 28 Wis. 2d 608, 137 N.W. 2d 442(19653 there is an- elementary but vital distinction between developers and, other land.owners. The subdivider is a manufacturer, pro- eesser, and marketer of a products land is but one of his raw materials. In subdivision control disputes, the developer is not defending hearth and. home against the king's intrusion, but simply attempting to maximize his profits from the sale of a finished product. As applied to him, subdivision control ex- actions are actually business regulations. "- * Professor Johnston also observes a trend.: "A careful reading of early cases would. have demonstrated the inapplicability of the 'voluntariness' and 'privilege' ra- tionales after platting ceased to be discretionary. When these J unsatisfactory doctrines finally gave way to the police-power rationale, bench and, bar were unprepared. to apply the new anal- ysis to subdivision control problems. Meanwhile, the inexorable pressure of urbanization and. suburbanization forced state and municipal legislatures to take action to protect the public ins terest 'while there was yet time. ' Their response to emerging public needs inevitably contravened certain traditional attitudes about land. ownership. As we have seen, the conflict has been resolved generally in- favor of such devices as compulsory dedi-