01/04/1988 Park Board Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Search

question whether a given regulation constitutes so severe a burden as to be unreasonable as applied to a particular sub- divider. Each involves judgments about the proper scope of the police power and the ambit of freedom from official reg- * 2 elation that is implicit in the concept of private property. The park dedication requirement has been challenged. as a taking of property without just compensation, contrary to the United States 44 *5 Constitution and. the Minnesota Constitution. Early oases upheld sub---- division dedications for streets, parks, ftc. , either on the ground. that the subdivider voluntarily agreed to so dedicate his land or on the ground, that subdivision recordation was a privilege which could be conditioned on dedication. Ip' the case of Pioneer Trust & Say. Bank v. Village of Mount Prospect. the Illinois Supreme Court made a substantial contribution to police power analysis. The court set forth the following test for distinguishing takings and valid exercise of the police power in subdivision d.edicatlonst "# * If the requirement is within the statutory grant of power to the municipality and. if the burden cast upon the sub- divider is specifically and uniquely attributable to his activ- ity, then the requirement is permissible."* In the case of Jordan v. Village of Menomonee Falls, the Wisconsin court, after stating the "specifically and uniquely attributable" test, adopted the following refinements "We deem this (the 'specifically and uniquely attributable' test) to be an acceptable statement of the yardstick to be ap- plied, provided the words 'specifically and uniquely attributable ot to his activity' areso restrictively applied as to cast an un- reasonable burden of proof upon the municipality which has enkc acted the ordinance under attack. In most instances it would. be impossible for the municipality to prove that the land required /,3)