Laserfiche WebLink
'cement that the exactions directly or <br />no additional requirement The court rejected <br />indirectly benefit the development. General. The <br />Grupe contention and sided with the Attorney Californiain the <br />tated, "the leading ted Home Builders, <br />court s of exactions is Associa <br />constitutionality _ Court held <br />Cit of Wa.�= Creek , 4 Cal. Leme33 (1t h . <br />etc . , Inc • v • "Thus , the Sup <br />(pg• 19 The court stated, between exaction <br />there need be only an indirect relationship The court <br />and the need to which the project d contributes." The <br />indicates <br />a " of Associate between a <br />stated, Our reading <br />there need be only an in iiect relations ip <br />need to which t e overall <br />development <br />proposed exaction and a The court can conside <br />contributes. 'ticular development and others like it, land] <br />impact of a par now and in the future <br />the needs of the public, <br />The court then held that the dedication under <br />(p9. 166) consideration clearly meets this test. <br />grounds <br />The court then examined one of the spec��icexaction <br />in which the trial court concluded h that it offended the <br />condition was unconstitutionalin particular that the edition <br />federaln titaking without compensation under t On <br />constituted estitution.Fourth Amendments of the United Stattes@Co emphasizes <br />that he <br />this <br />F Responder P <br />this point the court stated, has <br />he owner of a single lot on which sties built 8 <br />is merely t Be further <br />single home for his own use. question would affect 5,000 <br />judge gall found the easement in or nearly two-thirds of <br />to 10,000 square feet of his lat, <br />if <br />the total his F <br />area, and the offer transform to dedicate r he t private beach into <br />accepted, would essentially respondent claims the <br />public beach. For these reasons, <br />specific condition <br />ion imposed constitutes a 'taking within the <br />weaning of the Fifth Amendment." (pg. 173) <br />court <br />After <br />reviewing the law on the sub jectto tahe taking <br />stated :rat the dedIcati eeudtdatateot d fatnoun <br />without compensation. The <br />The California Supreme court determined t n re unless <br />can <br />Of property through re <br />be no taking to deprive the landowner of <br />its effect is and therefore <br />substantially all reasonable use of his <br />economic value <br />all reasonable although we recognize the A ins <br />property . different from t at <br />P d in a context <br />test was develape - that isi the testing of a zoning <br />considered hereof <br />as opposed to a dedication as 1S Preme <br />law we believe the California <br />development <br />C <br />ourt `s holding in Aq is nonetheless <br />Court is relevant <br />strong <br />since it evidences our Supra <br />reliance on the "dimunition in value" test in <br />-11- <br />