Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Document Sample
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council Powered By Docstoc


In a there is Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, Supreme Court of US, 1992 Is it enough that a regulation substantially advances legitimate state interests for it not to be a taking? Issue Reasoning
When there is no productive or economically beneficial use of the land is permitted, there is no average reciprocity of advantage. Leaving the owner without economically beneficial or productive options, subjects the property to public service, under the guise of mitigating serious public harm. (setting up Nuisance) ∏ Concedes that the Beach/dune area of the shores is an extremely valuable public resource, and that construction contributes to the erosion and destruction of this public resource - this concession brings the case to within those cases sustaining the police powers to enjoin the property owner from activities at can the public nuisance. S.C. S.Ct too quick to decide based on “noxious or harmful uses.” The distinction between harm-preventing and benefitconferring regulation is often in the eye of the beholder “harmful and noxious use” is the progenitor to “land use regulation does not effect a taking if it substantially advances legitimate state interests”

While property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it would be recognized as a taking. Two discrete categories of regulatory action occam possible without case specific inquiry into the public interest advanced: 1. where there is physical invasion of the property. 2. Regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of land Where the state seeks to sustain regulation that deprives land of all economically benefited use, it may resist compensation only if the logically antecedent inquiry into the nature of the owner’s estate shows that the proscribed use interests were not part of his title to begin with. Confiscatory regulations cannot be newly legislated without compensation. - Such law must do no more than duplicate the result that could have been achieved in the courts o by adjacent land owners under state law of private nuisance o by the state under its power to abate public nuisance if a regulation denies all economically beneficial uses of land, it is a categorical taking, unless the state can justify its actions as preventing a common law nuisance applying traditional state nuisance law.

Lucas bought two beachfront lots for $975,000 to build homes. The state subsequently passed the beachfront management act, which barred him from building any permanent habitable structures of lots. Lucas filed a suit in state court claiming a taking: “no economically viable use” - the regulation takes all the value all of the land.

Held Procedure P argues D argues
He will g o

it seems unlikely that CL would’ve prevented Lucas from building homes. But the state courts should deal with that on remand. trial court agreed that it was a taking S.C. Supreme Court reversed: when a land use regulation is designed to prevent serious public harm, no compensation is due. Regardless of the regulations effect on the property's value The enactment is an exercise of South Carolina's police powers to mitigate the harm to the public interest that ∏’s use of his land might cause.

Shared By: