|
Dolan[ Pl/ant] v Tigard
S. Ct. 1994
Author: Sam Biers
Mandated Access to Property- Rule
"rough proportionality"
Relevant Facts: The
City Planning Commission conditioned approval of Dolan's
application to expand her store and pave her parking lot upon her
compliance with dedication of land (1) for a public greenway to
minimize flooding (2) for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway intended
to relieve traffic congestion in the city's Central Business
District.
Legal Issue(s): Whether the
city has violated the 14th Amendment by refusing to
allow Dolan's planned construction to proceed unless she
acquiesce her property and rights to the city?
Court’s Holding: Yes
Procedure: Landowner
petitioned for judicial review of decision of Oregon Land Use
Board of Appeals, affirming conditions placed by city on
development of commercial property. city on development of
commercial property. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and landowner
again appealed. The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed. Reversed and
remanded
Law or Rule(s):
"[N]or shall private property be taken for public use,
without just compensation." Under the well-settled doctrine
of "unconstitutional conditions," the government may
not require a person to give up a constitutional right--here the
right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a
public use--in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by
the government where the benefit sought has little or no
relationship to the property.
Court Rationale: If we find
that a nexus exists, we must then decide the required degree of
connection between the exactions and the projected impact of the
proposed development. the prevention of flooding and the
reduction of traffic congestion are legitimate public
purposes. a nexus exists between preventing flooding and
expanding the surface on the property and increasing the amount
of storm water runoff. The same may be said for the city's
attempt to reduce traffic congestion by providing for alternative
means of transportation. the city demanded more The city has
never said why a public greenway, as opposed to a private one,
was required in the interest of flood control. The
difference to petitioner, of course, is the loss of her ability
to exclude others. Her right to exclude would not be regulated,
it would be eviscerated. The findings upon which the
city relies do not show the required reasonable relationship
between the floodplain easement and the petitioner's proposed new
building.
Plaintiff’s Argument:
The land dedication requirements were not related to the proposed
development and therefore constituted an uncompensated taking of
her property under the Fifth Amendment.
Defendant’s Argument:
Land use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially
advances legitimate state interest and does not deny owner
economically viable use of his or her land.
Test --whether
"essential nexus" existed between legitimate state
interest and permit condition exacted by city;
The second part of our analysis requires us
to determine whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the
city's permit conditions bears the required relationship to the
projected impact of petitioner's proposed development.
[Chicago] The principal purposes of the
Takings Clause is "to bar Government from forcing some
people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and
justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."
[Agins] A land use regulation does not
effect a taking if it "substantially advances legitimate
state interests" and does not "deny an owner
economically viable use of his land.
[Nollan quoting Penn Central] A use
restriction may constitute a "taking" if not reasonably
necessary to the effectuation of a substantial government
purpose'
|
