pf_01787 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

[1. ZONING. It is generally recognized that when Congress acts through its postal power, its power under the supremacy clause to super- sede conflicting state law is as broad as it is in its exercise of power over interstate commerce. See generally 62 Am. Jur. 2d Post Office, Section 7. The courts which have considered the issue have generally concluded that this means that local zoning ordinances and regulations have no applicability to Post Offices. See generally Crivello v. Board of Adjustment of Boro of Middle- sex, 183 F. Supp. 826 (D.N.J. 1960) and Thanet Corp., . , vs. Board of Adjustment of Princeton Township, 260 A. 2d 1 (N.J. Super 1969). The Thanet case also stands for the proposition that this immunity applies whether the Post Office owns the land or is leas- ing. III. TAKING OF LANDS ALREADY DEDICATED TO PUBLIC PURPOSE. As you know, lands which are already devoted to a public purpose are immune from further takings unless there is a su- perior use involved in the subsequent taking. I think there is no question that when the specific taking is directly authorized by statute, the federal government can take land devoted to a pre-existing public purpose. For example, in United States vs. 4450.72 Acres of Land, 27 F. Supp. 157 (D. Minn.), aff'd Minne- sota v. United States, 125 F. 2d 636 (8th Cir. 1942), the Court upheld the federal government's power to take by eminent domain for use as an Indian reservation some land which was already used by the State of Minnesota for wildlife conservation purposes. However, in that case, the United States government was acting - 2 -