pf_01912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

property can be characterized as a physical invasion by government • • than when interference the arises from some public program adjusting benefits and burdens of economic life to promote the common good." (Ibid•) beircharand acaerized las "government actions that may acquisitions of resources to permit or facilitate uniquely public functions have often been held to constitute takings. (Id., at P. 128 [57 L.Ed• 2d at p. 6511.) This is in contrast to government action which improves the public condition through resolution of conflict within the private sector of the society. • ." (Sax► su ra, 74 Yale L.J. at p• 67). The United States Supreme Court is still having a difficult time wrestling with the issue no Ca taking Re the e land use field. Recently in Williams ____Y , R Planning Commission vim. Hamilton Jo nk of 339 Johnson 6 1985 U.S. � (1985) 85 T.A. Daily the Court again sidestepped this issue. This was a U.S.C. 193 where "down -zoning" case brought pursuant ton 2 justice1Brennan s the Sixth Circuit Court, relying o dissent in San Die o Gas & Electric Co. v •e� erei z qu iced U.S. 621, 65b (1981) , determined that damag to compensate for a temporary taking. The United States Supreme Court stated: We granted certiorari to address the question whether federal, state, and local governments must pay money damages to a landowner whose property allegedly has been "taken" temporarily by Uthe application of government regulations. (1984) . . • - The Court twice hhs left this issue undecided. San, Die o Gas & Electric Co. v_ San Diego, su ra' Dc'ins v Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 2�(1980)• pace again, we fi ind that the question is not properly presented, and must be left for another day. For whether we examine the Planning under Fifth application of1t jur spr dense, or under the Amendment *taking" precept of due proses twe conclude that respondent's claim is premature. In discussing the difficulty of the issue the Court stated: We need not pass upon the merits of petitioners' arguments, for even if viewed asa question of due process, respondent's claim ispremature. -7 -