Agenda Packets - 1995/05/01 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

04/20/95 09:03 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADMIN DEPT 4 93379310 NO.458 P008 Mr. Ornstein. Page 7 argument might fail unless the existing use as a manufactured home park also is unreasonable. It appears that this factor would depend upon the circumstances. It would depend upon what uses are available for the property in question. Furthermore, what is reasonable in one situation may not be reasonable in another situation. If, on the other hand, a court should find that the statute serves an enterprise function, or a combination arbitration- enterprise function as in the Pratt case, a park owner would have to show that the property has suffered a substantial and measurable diminution in market value because of the statute. However, often a regulation will vastly decrease the worth of a piece of property by prohibiting even the most valuable use of it. Courts consistently have said that this does not necessarily give rise to a compensable taking. E.Q. , Euclid v. Ambler ealty, 272 U.S. 365, 47 S. Ct. 114 (1926) (75% diminution in value found not to constitute a taking) ; fadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S. Ct. 133 (1915) (diminution in value from $800,000 to $60,000 upheld) . Mere diminution in value, by itself, cannot establish a taking. Andrus v. Allard, 444 U.S. 51, 100 S. Ct. 318 (1979) ; Penn Central, 98 S. Ct. at 2663. The other factors in the analysis play a role as well. In Connolly, the regulation at issue completely deprived a participating employer of "whatever amount of money it is obligated to pay to fulfill its statutory liability. " 475 U.S. at 225 . The court noted, however, that the assessment was made becauseof the relationship between the employer and the pension plan in which it had voluntarily participated. The court' gave significance to the" fact that th6 'act had numerous provisions which moderated and mitigated the economic impact upon the individual property owner. Id. Also, giving yet another indication that such analysis depends upon the circumstances of a given case, the court noted that there was no showing that "the A/ The Minnesota courts repeatedly have upheld land-use regulations claimed to be unconstitutional takings where the property value has declined substantially as a result of the regulations. McShane,, 292 N.W.2d 257, citing State, by powder y v. Erickson, 285 N.W.2d 85 (Minn. 1979) ; Holoway v. c.it of z estone, 269 N.W.2d 28 (Minn. 1978) ; sec v. C't of $t. Paul, 304 Minn. 438, 231 N.W.2d 919 ( 1975) ; Connor vim. Township of Chanhassen, 249 Minn. 205, 8]. N.W.2d 789 ( 1957) ; Alexander Co _v qty of Owatonna, 222 Minn. 312, 24 N.W.2d 244 (1946) .