1995-04-27_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

ntr 1 NJ T Page 1 Jn nc tin Balancing an individual's right to make reosonobie use of one's property and the public's rights entrusted to govemment management is once again in the agenda of several so-called 'property rights' groups. In a movement that has visited the state and federal lawmakers many times before, private landowners are ogain asserting that environmental regulations are 'taking' away their property rights and values. In Minnesota, this debate hos been heard several times-over zoning laws, wetlands regulations, and the tike. Frequently in this debate, emotional arguments about abusive govemment laws and unresponSibie bureaucracies fuel what ~ truly a question of legalities. Indeed, the United States and the Minnesota Constitution defend the rights of landowners while acknowledging govemment authorities need to protect the public health and safety and to promote the general welfare. Previous lawsuits in both the Minnesota and U.S. Supreme Courts have upheld these principles and found environmental laws and zoning programs as constitutional. The balancing act comes to the evaluation of when does a govemmentai action, law, or regulation constitute a 'taking.' Courts have engaged in fact-specific balancing of a landowners Interest in moximizing economic gain from their property with the need for sound land use - management to avoid damage to the public health and safety and general welfare. These court decisions continue to fine tune what is or is not a regulatory 'taking. ° The June 24, 1994, Supreme Court decision in Dolan versus the City of Tigard refined what can.be required by the govemment as it relates to a taking. The decision narrows government requirements to be directly related and proportional to the project impact. • However, the rights and responsibilities of local government to enact zoning ordinances has never been found to be unconstitutional. The laws of Minnesota and the United States hove never - said that a landowner 15 free to do whatever they want on their own property. ft would not be reasonable to build an oil refinery in a residential neighborhood. Such use would be denied in order to protect the neighbor's public rights (nuisance laws). Although the proposer of such refinery may - perceive their rights are being taken away. Other instances are not so clear. fie Deportment of Natural Resources, and the State of Minnesota in general, are not interested in regulations for regulation sake nor for governmental purpose, but instead in the general public's best interest. Existing water laws are complex and with several agencies responsible for regulations " at Federal, State and Local levels, the DNR is trying to reduce overlap and we recognize the need - for simpllflcation. As an agency, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources also recognizes the need for protection of individu6t property rights and for protection of the public's interest. The laws and courts allow for the balancing of these values and their balancing must be discussed periodically to confirm and assure that this balance truly exists. We therefore welcome this opportunity for an open discussion involving all interested parties and we encourage participation as this topic is explored once again. •