Agenda Packets - 1995/05/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

04/20/95 09:02 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADMIN DEPT -* 93379310 NO.458 P006 Mr. Ornstein page 5 Hubb- d Bro- .ca tin• nc: V. it of Af on, 323 N.W.2d 757 ( 1982) (regulation$ • ' ' re lation by zoning ordinance does not constitute taking unless it deprives all reasonable uses) ; parranto Br s . , 425 N.W.2d at 592 (rezoning considered an arbitration function) ; Larsov_ 902, 907 (Minn. Ct. App. 1986) (denial of rezoning request serves an arbitration function) ; Carl Bol de & an c, v.1985) (denial of biil is., 378 N..W.2d 826, 829 (Minn. Ct. App. building permit in historical �heduled to beistrict serves acquiredtbyncity for function even where property s park development) . The United States Supreme Court in the Connolly case found that the regulation at issue served as a safeguard to the pension participantsrequiring a withdrawing employer to fund its share off thee plan qu obligations igations incurred during its association with the plan. " 106 S. Ct. at 1026. This did 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 saidthat 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 exp ecations . . This is true even though the effect ofthe alegislati n is to impose a new duty or liability based on past quoting s- v. Tu e E k •rn Mi i • o. , 428 U.S . 1, 96 S. Ct. 2882 ( 1976) . . However, not all .regulations are easilrbclassified as s�t "� exclusively "enterprise or exclusively "a9 i.r"arbitration. " 773 r,Mate, Department o Natu a1 Resource51 309 N,W. the 7, 773 (Minn. 1981j . In Eras, regulations p mechanical wild riCe pickers in public waters, as applied to plaintiff ' s property, were held to serve a combination of the �� at 774 . One section enterprise and arbitration functions. thea774 .prohnon ts an of the regulations stated explicitly alternative to government financiaassistance�and awas enaceto discharge a moral obligation to therite 773. Thehe. court believed this to be indicative t f an theregulationsservedio . a d. The court also found, however, arbitration among competing conservation function, constitutingr harvesters . ,a. The court found neitherter thetade r itration norrtthe enterprise function tv be predomin prominent. It then concluded that efan enterpriseu function is at least prominent, a taking Yd. at 774 . and measurable diminution of property value.