Takings and Private Property

Question 1

a) Takings Clause:

Answer 1

the Fifth Amendment limited the federal government’s power of eminent domain: “nor shall private property be taken for a public use without just compensation.” (binding on states via Fourteenth amendment)
i) A use is considered public if it furthers moral, economic, political and even aesthetic objectives. As long as there is a public advantage or benefit.

Question 2

Takings v. Regulation:

Answer 2

a) In general, most regulations will be upheld with deference to the legislation. Exceptions are physical takings (Loretto) and total deprivation (Lucas).

Question 3

Takings v. Regulation: Williamson

Answer 3

optician after regulation is passed realizes his business is less valuable.

(1) Building also less valuable because one of its prior uses is no longer possible
(2) But, unlikely to have a fifth amendment claim against this regulation on the theory that it took away some of the economic value.

Question 4

Takings v. Regulation: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)(p. 386)

Answer 4

buy land to build a house on the beach then regulation is passed that disallowed building.
(1) A regulation that deprives an owner of all economically beneficial uses of land is a taking (“total takings”).

Question 5

Takings v. Regulation: Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978)(p.386)

Answer 5

(1) Because Grand Central is considered to be a protected landmark, the court concluded that the prevention of construction of a high rise on top of the terminal by Landmark Preservation Commission did not constitute a taking.
(2) Rule: In deciding whether a particular government action has effected a taking, this Court focuses both on the character of the action and on the nature and extent of the interference with rights in the parcel as a whole.
(a) There are still many valuable things that can be done with Grand Central Station even if have to keep it as it is, therefore not a taking
(b) The economic effects of the regulation are just something that people have to deal with and are usually distributed among the public.

Question 6

Types of taking:

Answer 6

i) Actual physical taking of property
ii) Financial diminishment of property–> see Lucas
(1) Penn is different b/c property value wasn’t devalued–> just weren’t able to expand

Question 7

Kelo v. New London (2005)(p. 388) -

Answer 7

Pfizer economic development case

i) Court held the city did not violate the takings clause.
(1) The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, should be given deference (legislature must have a rational basis)
(2) Rule: (1) A state may transfer property from one private party to another if future use by the public is the purpose of the taking. (2) this court long ago rejected any literal requirement that condemned property be put into use of the general public, (3) courts should afford legislatures broad latitude in determining what public needs justify the use of the taking power. (4) promoting economic development is a traditional and long accepted function of government.