03-05-91 CCM - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Ornstein ge 6 In the present case, it is clear that Minn. Stat. S 327C.095 es not involve actual physical invasion by the government. However, it may not be as clear whether the statute serves an arbitration or enterprise function. It could be argued that the statute serves an arbitration function, in that it arbitrates among the ways in which a landowner uses property. A court could find that the monetary payments to homeowners, here, like the monetary payments to pension plans in Connolly, readjust the rights and burdens of economic life without serving a government enterprise. On the other hand, as in Pratt, it could be argued that the government is requiring a private party to shoulder a burden more properly placed upon the government welfare _ enterprise. B. The Economic Impact of the Regulation. The next factor in a taking analysis is the economic impact - of the regulation upon the property. As explained above, depending upon the character of the governmental action, a different level of economic impact is necessary before the courts will find that a taking has occurred. If a regulation serves an arbitration function, a property owner will be entitled to compensation only if the property is thereby denied of all reasonable uses. McShane, 292 N.W.2d at 258, citing Penn Central, 98 S. Ct. 2646. Where land use regulations serve an enterprise function, ,[t]here must be compensation to land owners whose property has suffered a substantial and measurable decline in market value as a result of the regulations." McShane, 282 N.W.2d at 258-59. The standard of denial of all reasonable uses is a difficult standard for a property owner to meet. Numerous uses have been considered "reasonable" by the courts. Particularly where an existing use may be continued, courts generally refuse to find that a taking has occurred. Penn Central, 98 S. Ct. 2646. Where a regulation creates a situation such that the property is not suitable for any of the primary uses allowed, but secondary uses remain which are not unreasonable, courts generally will find that the owner has not proved denial of all reasonable uses. Larson, 387 N.W.2d at 908. It could be argued that the park owners have not been denied any uses of their property by imposition of Minn. Stat. S 327C.095. If, however, as a result of the statute, the park owners are so burdened as to not be able to convert the property to another use, there could be an argument made that they had been denied all reasonable uses. On the other hand, that