Laserfiche WebLink
04/20/95 09:03 CITY OF BLOOMINGTON ADMIN DEPT -* 93379310 NO.458 P009 <br /> Mr. Ornstein <br /> Page 8 . <br /> withdrawal liability actually imposed on an employer will always <br /> be out of proportion to its experience with the plan . . . . " <br /> Id. at 226. <br /> C. Interference with Distinct Investment-Backed <br /> Expectations. <br /> The third factor in analyzing a taking challenge, is the <br /> effect of the regulation on the property owners distinct <br /> investment-backed expectations. These expectations must be <br /> reasonable. Connolly, 106 S. Ct. at 1027. •The Supreme Court <br /> also has noted that "perhaps because of its vary uncertainty, the <br /> interest in anticipated gains has traditionally been viewed as <br /> less-compelling than other property-related interests . " Andrus, <br /> 100 S. Ct. at 327. <br /> The Connolly case is particularly instructive on this point <br /> because it too involved direct monetary payments. In analyzing <br /> this factor of the taking test, the court noted that pension <br /> plans had been regulated for quite some time, giving notice to `{ <br /> employers that their involvement with the plans were subject to <br /> restrictions . 106 S. Ct. at 1027 . "Those who do business in <br /> the regulated field cannot object if the legislative scheme is <br /> buttressed by subsequent amendments to achieve the legislative <br /> end. " Id. at 1027, quoting PHA v. The Darlincton, Inc: , 358 U.S. <br /> 84, 91, 79 S. Ct. 141 (1958) . Depending upon how long a park <br /> owner has been in the business, and how long relative to that <br /> time manufactured home parks have been regulated, it may be <br /> argued that a park owner either had notice or did not have notice <br /> that the field was regulated and could be subject to further . <br /> regulations. Analysis of this factor also depends upon the <br /> actual investment-backed expectations held by a park airier when <br /> purchasing the property or entering the field of park operation. <br /> D. Conclusion. <br /> Analysis of these three factors demonstrates the extensively <br /> ad hoc nature of regulatory taking analysis. The above-cited <br /> cases indicate that it is generally difficult for a property <br /> owner to prove that a regulatory taking has occurred. This may <br /> be particularly true as to the regulation of housing conditions, <br /> regarding which the United States Supreme Court has cautioned <br /> that "States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in <br /> general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular <br /> without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such <br /> regulation entails . " •_etto v. e_e•ro -ter M-nhattan <br /> Coro. , 458 U.S. 419, 440, 102 S. Ct. 3164 ( 1982) ; Sem Also <br />