Takings Clause (5A) Flashcards
(9 cards)
Kelo v. City of New London
PUBLIC USE: New London used eminent-domain authority to seize private property (that was NOT in poor condition) to sell to private developers to create new jobs and inc. tax revenues
Holding: This does not violate the public use requirement.
Majority (Stevens):
The state may transfer property from one private party to another if the purpose is public use→Question whether the City’s development plan serves a “public purpose”
Berman v Parker redevelopment plan for a “blighted area” upheld because most of it was beyond repair; defer to legislative and agency judgment
Hawaii Housing Authority v Midkiff found the purpose of eliminating social and economic evils of a land oligopoly was public use; afford legislatures deference in what public needs justify taking
In both cases overarching purpose was to promote public welfare.
Standard for upholding eminent domain programs: Viable public purpose satisfies the public-use requirement→rationally related to a conceivable public purpose
economic benefit constitutes as a viable public purpose
Key fact here is that there is a comprehensive development plan
Legislative choice is given deference→reasonable certainty that the public benefit will occur does not matter
Opinion dos not preclude any state from placing further restrictions on its exercise of the takings power
Concurrence (Kennedy): Public use should be reviewed by a meaningful rational basis review; economic development purpose should not require a more demanding level of scrutiny
Dissent (O’Connor): Economic development takings are unconstitutional; the Precedent cases were about social harms; the well-maintained homes here are not a source of any social harm; The Majority is too broad and allows taking for some secondary public benefit; allows the government to transfer property from the poor to the rich/influential.
Dissent (Thomas): This is contrary to tradition of protecting private property rights and the wrong view (it should be public use not public purpose); disproportionate burden on the poor and minority communities.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon
OVERREGULATION: Coal company gave land to Mahon. The company still planned to mine under the land and was explicit in the deed about this risk. PA passed a law forbidding mining if it could affect the integrity of the surface of the land.
Holding: Yes, overregulation can be considered a taking. If the regulation of the property goes too far it will be seen as a taking.
(Holmes) Reasoning:
States can pass laws through police power that have an incidental impact on property value but if that effect causes sufficient property value loss then the state must take land through eminent domain and provide just compensation.
The statute was not meant to protect a public nuisance for only one home or protect personal safety of one man who knew the risks associated with purchasing the home.
His risk being a danger does not give him the right to have greater rights than he bought
This is a taking because the state exceeded its police powers and made mining commercially impracticable→cannot force the cease of operations without just compensation.
Dissent (Brandeis): Police power will always interfere with the right to use land as an individual sees fit. A statute with the intention to protect the public is a valid use of the police power even if only one member of the public is involved→restriction can be lawfully imposed if its purpose is for the public (could be different if meant to confer benefits upon property owners)
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York
JUST COMPENSATION: NYC preservation law designating the Grand Central Terminal building “a landmark” constituted a permissible regulation→not a compensable taking. The law required the exterior of the building to be in “good repair” and seek approval before making exterior alterations.
Majority (Brennan): Property owners should be justly compensated when a stick is taken out of their bundle of property rights and where they are taking on a burden that benefits others
FACTORS
– Generality: If the regulation is general and applies to everyone, it is less likely for just compensation to be paid
– Economic Impact: Does it undermine investment backed expectations?
– Public Purpose: has to benefit the public
Dissent (Rehnquist): NYC taxpayers should be paying for the preservation of historic buildings, not the owners of the buildings
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (case note)
PER SE RULE: ECON BENEFICIAL USE: Individual developers bought beachfront property with the intent to build homes in SC, but SC passed a law that barred building the homes.
Majority (Scalia): Where the gov’t is taking someone’s interest in a productive or economic use of their land, just compensation is required whether there is a public use or not
NEW PER SE RULE: Government denial of ALL economically beneficial use = taking
Exception exists for econ uses of private property not originally contemplated by the owner’s title or property rights when acquiring the property→WHAT WAS NOT ORIGINALLY IN THE BUNDLE
Concurrence (Kennedy): cautioned for the unique concerns for a fragile land system __>state can go further in regulating its development more than CL nuisance would allow
Dissent (Souter): no standing (moot) because SC passed another law allowing some building
Dissent (Blackmun): Criticize new rule→should be the case-specific inquiry
Dissent (Stevens): criticize new rule→removes state’s CL that allows legislature to revise laws that regulate property
Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid: Regulation allowed labor organizations the right to access an agricultural employer’s property to meet with employees
Majority (Roberts): This is a Per Se Taking and does not require just compensation
– Temporary physical intrusion
Dissent (Breyer): this isn’t a permanent taking, so just compensation shouldn’t be required
KEY TAKEAWAY→ If a regulation impedes on a property owner’s essential property right to exclude people from their property, then a taking has occurred and just compensation is required.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: D enacted 2 temporary moratoria on development so it could study the impact of this activity on the Tahoe Basin. P filed suit
Majority (Stevens): a temporary taking/moratorium does not require just compensation
This is only a temporary economic loss
Dissent (Thomas): It shouldn’t matter that there is a temporary loss or not, the fact is that the owner couldn’t partake in their preferred use of their land, so they should be justly compensated
Dissent (Rehnquist): The pause on development lasted years rather than months → this isn’t temporary; FMV should be provided as just compensation
Tension in defining what is a temporary taking versus what is a permanent taking
Taking of Private Property
Property Rights = Bundle of Sticks
Gov’t is considered to have taken private property when they have taken a stick out of your bundle
Public Use
Courts are deferential to the government; if the gov’t cites a public purpose, they will likely uphold it
Just Compensation
Three categories: Physical intrusion, permanent economic deprivation, and regulations
Just compensation = FMV of property
