Regulatory Takings

Question 1

Summary Inquiry:

Answer 1

a) Does reg advance legit st interest? Reas. Related to valid public purpose?
b) Does it go too far (Penn Central balancing, Per se?) (if public nuisanceprob doesn’t go too far)

Question 2

2) Development:

Answer 2

Mugler–>Penn Coal–>Penn Central/Lucas

Question 3

3) Mugler :

Answer 3

(brewery) if reg is reasonably related to a valid public purpose, it could never constitute a taking (low standard)

Question 4

4) Pennsylvania Coal:

Answer 4

police power reg cannot “go too far” (diminishes value to 0 or close) or it will constitute a taking

a) F: bill reserved full right to drill coal under π’s prop; statute passed to prevent mining that caused subsidence of homes, which happened–>for Coal; reg = taking
b) Segmentation? Only a segment (support estate) goes to 0 = unreas; as opposed to the value of the prop as a whole
c) FT: this is wrong—segmented diminution to 0 doesn’t equate to going too farcourt says that it does since it would destroy coal industrycounter: can still mine, just not up to the point where the surface is affected

Question 5

5) Euclid:

Answer 5

zoning statute restricting sell of land for commercial use (lowered value by 75%); π challenged it facially as uncon’l–>zoning statute con’l; not arbitrary/unreas

a) Strict zoning measures = reas for health/safety of community. However, possible for zoning ordinance to be against public interest as to make it unlawful (zoning a parcel in 2 mutually exclusive zones is per se unreas)
b) Dissent: police power doesn’t extend past public nuisances

Question 6

6) Big Q: How far is too far?

a) Development:

Answer 6

When reg limits use of nuisances (noxious or harmful uses): not a takingland-use regulation not a taking if it substantially advances legit st interest–> Penn/Lucas tests

Question 7

b) Penn Central Balancing Test

Answer 7

i) Factors:
(1) Economic impact on owner
(2) Reg interferences w/ investment-back expectations
(3) Character of gov action (i.e. physical invasion = per se taking)

Question 8

ii) Penn Central:

Answer 8

NYC makes Station historic landmark, which puts restrictions on use; wants to build skyscraper on top; NYC rejects–>not a taking since restriction won’t restrict all reas. beneficial use

(1) Law doesn’t interfere w/ present use of station (just restricts airspace use)
(2) segmentation: While value may be reduced compared to having skyscraper, it doesn’t reduce value related to present ops, so it doesn’t reduce value of un-segmented prop to 0 (even though airspace use is)
(a) Problem: what if airspace was segmented where skyscraper owner owned airspace, then tried to build (would reduce to 0)? How do we justify this illogical outcome?