PL PACKET 07211987 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In -terms of analyzing the potential impact of the case on future land use planning or other regula.to.ry practices, it is important to recognize what the case does not stand 'for . The case does not stand for the proposition that all interim or permanent flood plain ordinances constitute a taking of .property requiring compens.ation, 'nor does it establish a standard that would indicate when a regulation results in a taking . To the contrary ,, the Court acknowledges that the the county might avoid- the conclusion that a compensable taking had occurred by establishing the denial of use was insulated as part of the States authority to enact safety regulations. Further , the Court stated mere fluctuations in value during the process of governmental decision making , absent extraordinary delay, are incidents of ownership and consequently, not a taking. Finally, the Court stated, "we limit our holding to the facts presented , and of course do not deal with the quite different questions that would arise in the case of normal delays in obtaining building permits, changes in zoning ordinances, variances , and the like which are not before us today. " The three dissenting justices stated that their major objection to the majority' s holding is that the decision fails to establish a workable standard for distinguishing between everyday regulatory inconveniences and those so severe that they constitute a taking . They also have trouble working with the majority ' s distinction between non-compensable "normal delays" and delays that rise to the level of a taking . The dissent suggests that the test for regulatory takings requires an inquiry into the duration of the restriction as -well as its scope and severity. The dissent simply sees the need to provide a workable standard, a 'standard that is so conspicuously absent from .the majority opinion. What Should Cities Do? Cities as always should make make findings to demonstrate that their decisions are supported by legitimate health, safety and welfare concerns . Zoning and other regulations should continue to. be reviewed to assure that they do not deny landowners all reasonable use of their property. Caution should be exercised to -. be sure that regulations are important enough to justify the cost of defending against potential claims likely to be generated by the decision. On those rare occasions when a city adopts regulations prohibiting all construction, the city should make sure that such regulations are founded on sound public safety concerns . Finally, - the decision seems to say that cities are protected from allegations based on normal delays in the planning process . In this regard , care ,should be taken to make sure that regulatory and planning activities' do not become dilatory. i