COM 0045.022 2002-2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

value, and value is a key indicator in terms of economic effect. There are no continuing mitigating uses here as there were with respect to the fully-operational (complete with commercial tenants) Grand Central Station in Penn Central. As the California court of appeals noted in its decision in the First Lutheran case on remand, courts are willing to balance the equities more in favor of government when the challenged regulation is for health and safety purposes rather than welfare, and in favor of the landowner when the challenged regulation is for welfare purposes rather than health and safety. 3. Legitimate State Interest Some courts continue to decide regulatory takings cases under the "legitimate state interest" prong of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). Thus, in State ex rel. Shemo v. Cit o~yfield Heights, 75 N.E.2d 345 (Ohio 2002), the Ohio supreme court held that the city lacked any legitimate governmental health, safety or welfare concerns in support of a planned development reclassification of realtor's land which restricted it to single-family uses, and therefore the classification did not substantially advance any legitimate city police power interest. Also in Schoolcraft Eug, Inc. v. Schoolcraft Township, 2000 WL 33409627 (Mich. App.), a Michigan appeals court remanded for trial a regulatory taking attack on an ordinance directed at stopping the expansion of plaintiff s egg business on the ground that the government had presented no proof that placing a limit on the facility had any reasonable relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. To the same effect is Cwynar v. City & County of San Francisco, 109 Ca1.Rptr.2d 233 (Cal. App. 1 Dist. 2001), in which the court held that an ordinance restricting a landlord's ability to evict a tenant, particularly if the landlord wished to take possession for the landlord's personal use or residence, might constitute a taking depending upon the evidence adduced at trial on the legitimacy of the government's interest in passing the ordinance. C. Relevant Parcel for Landowners Under the Draft General Plan Is, For Takings Purposes, the Remnant Parcels Which Are Either Undevelopable or Drastically Reduced In Value. Carving out undevelopable parcels raises substantial regulatory takings problems under regulatory takings jurisprudence. The critical question, of course, is, what is that relevant parcel, or, as aptly phrased by the Lucas opinion: When, for example, a regulation requires a developer to leave 90% of a rural tract in its natural state, it is uncleaz whether we would analyze the situation as one in which the owner has been deprived of all economically beneficial use of the burdened portion of the tract, or as one in which the owner has suffered a mere diminution in value of the tract as a whole... [there follows criticism of that portion of the New York state court decision in Penn Central which suggested that nearby property of the owner could be combined with that portion he claimed was unusable in deciding whether there had been a regulatory taking]...The answer to this difficult question may liken how the owner's reasonable expectations have 8