03-05-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Mr. Ornstein Page 5 See, e.g_, Hubbard Broadcasting, Inc v City of Afton, 323 N.W.2d 757 (1982) (regulation by zoning ordinance does not constitute taking unless it deprives all reasonable uses); Parranto Bros., 425 N.W.2d at 592 (rezoning considered an arbitration function); Larson v. County of Washington, 387 N.W.2d 902, 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (denial of rezoning request serves an arbitration function); Carl Bolander & Sons. Inc. v. Minneapolis, 378 N.W.2d 826, 829 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985) (denial of building permit in historical district serves arbitration function even where property scheduled to be acquired by city for park development). The United States Supreme Court in the Connolly case found that the regulation at issue served as a safeguard to the pension participants ,by requiring a withdrawing employer to fund its share of the plan obligations incurred during its association with the plan." 106 S. Ct. at 1026. Thisdid not indicate'a taking since the program adjusted "the benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good . " Id. As the court cautioned, "it cannot be said that the Taking Clause is violated whenever legislation requires one person to use his or her assets for the benefit of another." 106 S. Ct. at 1025. Furthermore, "Legislation readjusting rights and burdens is not unlawful solely because it upsets otherwise settled expectations . . . This is true even though the effect of the legislation is to impose a new duty or liability based on past acts." Id., quoting Usery v Turner Elkhorn Mining Co., 428 U.S. 1, 96 S. Ct. 2882 (1976). However, not all regulations are easily classified as exclusively "enterprise" or exclusively "arbitration." Pratt v. State Department of Natural Resources, 309 N.W.2d 767, 773 (Minn. 1981). In Pratt, regulations prohibiting the use of -_ mechanical wild rice pickers in public waters, as applied to plaintiff's property, were held to serve a combination of the enterprise and arbitration. functions. Id. at 774. One section of the regulations stated explicitly that the prohibition was an alternative to government financial assistance and was enacted to discharge a moral obligation to the Indians. Id. at 773. The court believed this to be indicative of an enterprise function. Id. The court also found, however, that the regulations served a conservation function, constituting arbitration among competing harvesters. Id. The court found neither the arbitration nor the enterprise function to be predominate, but noted that both were prominent. It then concluded that where an enterprise function is at least prominent, a taking occurs if there is a substantial and measurable diminution of property value. Id. at 774.