Laserfiche WebLink
�I�I 1111 <br /> league ®f minnesota cities . <br /> June 23 , 1987 <br /> To: Mayors, Managers and Clerks <br /> From: Thomas L.' Grundhoefer , Staff Attorney <br /> Re: Advisory on Recent- U .S. Supreme Court Case Affecting <br /> Municipal Zoning Practices. <br /> Cities have new reason to think carefully about municipal <br /> regulations, especially those involving zoning and building <br /> matters. Care should be taken to be sure that regulations are <br /> important enough to justify the cost of defending against damage <br /> claims likely to be encouraged by the case summarized below. It <br /> would be better to make an evaluation_ of your ordinances now and <br /> eliminate those that are, not worth defending , than to change city <br /> regulations in the face of law suits to be expected in the future. <br /> On June 7, 1987 the U .S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. <br /> Constitution requires that a property owner be compensated for <br /> economic losses incurred during the period of time in which a law <br /> or regulation, later found to be an unconstitutional taking , is in <br /> effect. Prior to the decision, municipalities could repeal the <br /> invalid regulation and not have to pay compensation for the <br /> period during which the regulation was in effect. <br /> The case,. First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. <br /> County of Los Angeles 55 L.W. 4781 , involved a challenge by a <br /> church to an interim county ordinance prohibiting construction of <br /> any new building within a flood plain area. When the church was <br /> denied the right to build in the flood protection area, it sued <br /> and sought damages for the period of time during which it was <br /> denied the right to build. <br /> The Court reasoned that temporary takings which, as here, deny a <br /> landowner all use of his property, are not different in kind from <br /> permanent takings, for which the constitution clearly requires <br /> compensation. The Court also found no rationale for <br /> distinguishing between regulatory takings and formal physical <br /> takings. <br /> The Court 's decision is based on a judicial assumption that the <br /> ordinance denied- the church all use of its property for a <br /> • considerable period of years, and they held that. "invalidation of <br /> the ordinance without payment of fair value for the use of the <br /> property during this period of time would be constitutionally <br /> insufficient. " <br /> 1 03 university avenue east, st. paul, minnesota 55-1 01 (612) 227-5600 <br />