|
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'
|
