PL PACKET 08181987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• THE SUPREME COURT' S OPINION First let ' s look at what the Court did not do . The Court did not decide whether or not -the Los Angeles County ordinance did actually deny the church all use of its land . The Court did not decide whether or not the county can avoid the conclusion that a "taking" had occurred by establishing that the denial of all use was insulated as a part of the State ' s authority to enact safety regulations . What the Court said was : "We merely hold that where the government ' s activities ( regulations ) have already worked a taking of all use of property , no subsequent action by the government can relieve it of the duty to provide compensation for the period when the taking was effective" . In its conclusion the Court noted that its opinion "will undoubtedly lessen to some extent the freedom and flexibility of land-use planners and governing bodies of municipal corporations when enacting land use regulations . It is principally to this statement that the remainder of this report is addressed . • f WHAT OTHER' S ARE SAYING The June 9 land use decision of the Supreme Court has been given much play in the press , much more so than many of the Court ' s opinions. Several notable persons have commented on the opinion and many publications have reported on the action of the Court . The following is a fair representation of what others are saying . National League of Cities: "Before the Court ' s decision in this case , it had been assumed that a city or town which lost a case under the takings clause could simply rescind or revise the challenged regulation without compensating the property owner . The Court ' s ruling places landowners whose property interests are adversely affected by a so-called regulatory taking on a par with property owners whose land is actually condemned through eminent domain for public projects such as a highway . " • 2