Unconstitutional Regulatory Takings

From Salish Sea Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search


Recent Topic Edits

Salish Sea References

Wiki Rules

  • Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
  • Please adhere to our social contract
  • Complain here, and be nice.


Link to List of Workgroups Link to List of Efforts Link to List of Resources Link to List of Documents Link to List of Topics Link to List of Places

Link to Headwater Sites Link to Lowland Watershed Sites Link to Floodplain Sites Link to Delta Sites Link to Embayment Sites Link to Beach Sites Link to Rocky Headland Sites

Unconstitutional regulatory takings is a description of a legal scenario where a local jurisdiction violates the Washington State Constitution by extinguishing all reasonable economic use. The regulation must address a public need, the regulation must be necessary to meet that need, and the burden must be fair. This is a hotly contested area of state and national law.

Notes

  • As usual, the MRSC has a summary of takings law
  • Eminent domain is an authority among Counties and Cities under state law.
    • 8.08 RCW - Eminent domain by counties
    • 8.12 RCW - Eminent domain by cities
    • 8.25 RCW - Additional provisions applicable to eminent domain proceedings
    • Amendment 5 US Constitution - "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
    • RCW 36.70A.020(6) - "Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions."
    • Article 11, section 11 grants cities and counties the police power authority to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
    • Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922): "A regulation does not, however, go "too far" so as to require compensation for a takings when it merely decreases property value or prevents property owners from doing exactly what they want with their property. As long as a regulation allows property to be put to productive economic use, the property has value and the regulation will not be deemed to deny all reasonable economic use of the property; there is no regulatory taking in that situation. Property owners do not have a constitutional right to the most profitable use of their property."
    • the courts have also used a "substantive due process" test to analyze the burdens imposed by land use regulations - a regulation must not only have a legitimate public purpose, but it must also use means that are reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose and that do not impose an unfair burden on affected property owners.
    • Grossman et al 2006 provides an indepth analysis for how to avoid unconstitutional takings.