03-05-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Ornstein Page 3 generally render state statutes. will provide you opinions regarding the constitutionality of However, I hope that the following discussion some guidance on the taking clauses. Generally, the government may regulate land to a great extent, and only if the regulation goes beyond certain limits, will it be considered a compensable taking. Pennsylvania Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 39�1 413 (1922). A land use regulation does not constitute a compensable taking under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitutionl or under Minnesota Constitution, art. I, S 13,2 if it "substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests" and does not "den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land." Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141,.3146 (1987), citing Akins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S 255, 260, 100 S. Ct. 2130 (1980); Parranto Bros. v. City of New Brighton, 425 N.W.2d 585, 590 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988). The question of whether a regulation constitutes a compensable taking involves a balancing of public and private interests and an inquiry into the facts of each case. Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp., 475 U.S. 211, 224, 106 S. Ct. 1018, 1026 (1986); Parranto Bros., 425 N.W.2d at 590-91, citing Acrins, 447 U.S. 260-61. Minnesota courts and federal courts generally have applied the following three factors in making such an inquiry: (1) the character of the governmental action; (2) the economic impact of the regulation; and (3) the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment -backed expectations. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York Citv, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 2659 (1978). 1/ The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." 2/ Minnesota Constitution art. I, § 13, provides that "private property shall not be taken, destroyed, or damaged for public use without just compensation therefore, first paid or secured." 3/ A taking claim under the federal constitution would not be ripe for adjudication until available state remedies have been exhausted. Williamson Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). Minnesota courts do, however, rely upon federal case law in analyzing taking claims pursuant to the Minnesota Constitution.