pf_01912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

formula can work in each and every case; it is a balancing test based on the proper exercise of police power in a reasonable manner, with the full understanding that there is no constitutional right to develop as interpreted by the California courts (e. . no right to subdivide, Associated, supra; development is a privilege, Trent Meredith, su ra; no right to go out of business, Nash v. Santa Monica, 37 Cal. 3d 97 (1984); no right to convert an apartment to a condominium, Norsco _Enterprises v. City of Fremont, 54 Carl. App. 3d 488 (1976) ; Grr iffin Development v. City of Oxnard, Cal. 3d (Aug. 1, 1985)). The issue of whether or not a dedication or a fee condition is valid is somewhat anPlagous to whether or not a taking has occurred because of overregulation by land use controls. This issue was discussed by the court 3n A,ptos Seasca a Corp. v.' County of Santa Cruz, 138 Cal. App. _3d There is no litmus paper test under either federal or state law to determine when a taking has occurred„ "[W]hether a regulation is excessive in any particular situation involves questions of degree, turning on the individual facts of each case . . . ." (A gins v. CCiiLy of Tiburon* su ra, 24 Cal. 3d at P. l7. )' The tin i ted States Supreme Court has declared itself unable to develop any set formula for determining what constitutes a "taking" for purposes of the rifth Amendment. (Penn Central Trans . Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. TMIM i(197f9T L.EJ'.Td - 6►"T1,_-648, 98 S.Ct. 26461.) "The application of a general zoning .law to par- ticular property effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, see lN+ectcy v. Cambridge, 277 U.S. 1830 188 (1928) , or ► en es air owner economically viable use of his land,see Penn Central . Frans Co. v. New York City, 438 U.37771 0��, n"` . ' � MST Tre rmTnation that governmental action consti- tutes m taking is, in essence, a determination that the public at large, rather than a single owner, crust bear the burden of an exercise of state poorer in the public interest. Although no precise rule determines when property has been taken, see kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979 , t e question necessariTy eequirer a weighing of private and public interex%ts." (A ins v. Tiburonsu , ra, 447 U.S. at pp. 260-2C1g—'T�5 f.ME 1r m at pp. 1.11-11.2) . ) I>eecisional law under the takings clause of the federal Constitution has been described as -5-