|
|
The Land Use Tracker |
||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IN THIS ISSUE:
|
Moratoria and Takings AHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC. V.TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY United States Supreme Court - 216 F.3d 764 Decided April 23, 2002 Opinion author: Stevens Held: The moratoria ordered by Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) are not per se takings of property requiring compensation under the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution. TRPA imposed two moratoria, totaling 32 months, on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while formulating a comprehensive land use plan for the area. The planning agency solicited comments and criticisms from interested parties during its deliberations. It argued that a temporary ban on development and resulting careful deliberation of planning issues reduced risks that individual landowners would bear an inappropriate regulatory burden. It also demonstrated that property values in the area continued to escalate during the period of the moratoria. Realtor and property owner petitioners in support of a Takings claim in the case argued for a categorical rule that whenever the government imposes a regulation that denies all economically viable use of property, even if briefly, it constitutes a taking. The Court recognized that moratoria are, in many cases, an important tool of community planning. The consideration of having to compensate property owners during a moratorium could compromise good decision-making, rushing the planning process or forcing its abandonment, especially in the development of a regional plan. Adapted from Cornell University web site
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||
