Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

VII. TAKINGS CLAUSE (Four questions to ask but class only focuses on 2 (Is…

- - - - Possessory or Physical Takings
        
        Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattaan CATV Corp: Ct. held that permanent invasion of physical space is taking even if its de minims
      - Regulatory takings
        
        PN Coal Co. v. Mahon- Gov regulated in way that changes use/ value of property. TAKING. Railroad co sold land to def but reserved the right to mine underneath, Kohler Act prohibited mining of coal in ways that cause the subsidence of any structure used as a human habitation
        
        Miller v. Schoene: Red cedars carrying fungus you have to cut down to protect apple orchids. Guy doesn't want to turn trees into wood but wood still has economic value so not a taking. All regulations benefit some and hurt others.
      - Conditional development
        
        Not a regulation for everyone, not possessory taking, they say yes you can build but you have to do this on your property.
        
        Dolan v. Tigard TEST
        
        Is there an essential nexus between the legitimate state interest and the permit condition exacted by the city? Why are they doing this is it connected to their goal?
        
        If you have nexus and proportionality then condition is acceptable and not unconstitutional
        
        Look at what they are doing on the space. Is the reason they are giving locigcally connected and how much is too much. Is what they are asking proportionate to the thing?
    - - Economic impact of the regulation
      - Extent to which regulation interfered with investment back expectations
      - Character of the governmental action
        
        GOV REG is taking if it leaves no economically viable use for the property
- - - - Yes for public use
        
        RATIONAL BASIS: Taking must be rationally related to rationally conceivable public purpose. RB court defers to leg any reason is okay
        
        Hawaii Housing Authority case- Ct upheld plan to condemn private property and sell to tenants as a way of breaking up former kingdoms and prompting economic development.
        Kelo v. City of New London- Eminent domain exercised to create new centralized downtown and then transferred to private actor. Controversial taking. Standard is flexible, as long as gov is doing it for redevelopment plan