{"title":"The Take on Takings","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394765","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394765","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 2002 U.S. LEXIS 3028 (2002) is the latest1, but certainly not the final, word in the takings debate. We've invited nine land-use attorneys with a wide range of viewpoints to share their insights, musings, and (in some cases) frustrations about the Tahoe-Sierra decision. From the advocate for the Tahoe landowners (Michael M. Berger) to the General Counsel for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (John Marshall), we have a diversity of opinions that illustrate the complexity of the issue. There is no easy answer to the question: “When does a regulation go too far?”","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131407708","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Tahoe-Sierra: The Great Terrain Robbery, or Simply a Bridge Too Far for Landowners?","authors":"J. Delaney","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394772","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394772","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Landowners who file facial challenges in regulatory takings cases often face A Bridge Too Far,1 particularly in the Supreme Court.2 They must show that the mere enactment of the regulation effects a taking of their property. Not only do they lose the vast majority of these cases, as often as not, they are bombarded with broadly worded opinions that can come back to haunt them in subsequent “as applied” challenges to the same regulations.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134436446","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Once and Future Penn Central Test","authors":"J. Echeverria","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394774","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394774","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Ten years ago, in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, the Supreme Court announced a new “categorical” test for regulatory takings, a step that logically implied that there must also be a “noncategorical” takings test (based, most presumed, on the Court's 1978 decision in Penn Central). Thus ensued a frantic effort among academics and takings practitioners to make sense of (or debunk) this two-tier analysis, an effort to which I contributed in the pages of this journal with an article entitled “Is the Penn Central Three Factor Test Ready for History's Dustbin?” (Vol. 52, No. 1).","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"41 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121988471","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Shame of Planners","authors":"M. M. Berger","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394767","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394767","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract It has been more than two decades since the late Supreme Court Justice William Brennan challenged the planning profession with his famous query: “If a policeman must know the Constitution, then why not a planner?” (San Diego Gas & Elec. Co. v. City of San Diego, 450 U.S. 621, 661, n. 26 [1981].) It's not that Justice Brennan was unsympathetic to the goals and tribulations of land-use planners. After all, his constitutional gauntlet was thrown down shortly after he had authored the Court's opinion in Penn Central (undoubtedly lauded in some of the other commentaries in this issue, as it was by the Tahoe-Sierra majority) upholding New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"101 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124830188","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Happy Earth Day, Lake Tahoe!","authors":"T. Dowling","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394768","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394768","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On April 23, the Supreme Court gave Lake Tahoe, planners, and local officials a marvelous Earth Day present in Tahoe-Sierra. At long last, Tahoe-Sierra breaks a string of government losses in regulatory takings rulings by the Supreme Court, and it does so in dramatic fashion.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"30 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128273476","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Takings Blockbuster and a Triumph for Planning","authors":"T. Roberts","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394766","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court's decision in Tahoe-Sierra is the first blockbuster takings case since the Lucas case in 1992. It is most noteworthy because it stems the tide of landowner victories in takings cases that dates back to 1987, giving government a win and affirming the propriety of responsible planning in regulating land development.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116978675","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Judicial Decisions","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394775","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394775","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"88 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126360626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Index","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394776","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394776","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"132064700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Sweet Affirmation","authors":"John L. Marshall","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394773","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394773","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract On April 23, 2002, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency avoided a $27 million trainwreck. The agency, needless to say, breathed a sigh of relief since, in the short run, governments do not win takings cases, they avoid losing them. The Supreme Court's opinion, however, contains some interesting grist for the mills of land-use professionals beyond discussion of the Court's central holding in the case (that Penn Central, not Lucas, applies to regulations that eliminate something less than the total ownership interest). With embarrassing superficiality, I set forth a few observations.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125083568","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Rolling the Dice with Ambrose Bierce","authors":"G. Kanner","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2002.10394770","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2002.10394770","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court tells us, as a matter of law, that a moratorium is not a taking per se, not even when it extends over a period of several years, allows the affected land owners no economically rational land use, and leaves them only with their obligation to pay property taxes and make mortgage payments. I, a barefoot country lawyer, find this quite confusing because in 1987, in the First English case, the court held quite the opposite, that a denial of viable economic use of land for a similarly long period of time can be a taking per se requiring payment of just compensation. And so, since my meager intellectual resources are probably unequal to the task of plumbing this mystery, I leave to my colleagues the task of parsing Justice Stevens's reasoning in the Tahoe-Sierra case. For the moment I have had my fill of scrutinizing this intellectual shell game, though I have been known to indulge in such activity (Gideon Kanner, Hunting the Snark, Not the Quark: Has the U.S. Supreme Court Been Competent in Its Effort to Formulate Coherent Regulatory Takings Law? 30 The Urban Lawyer 307 (1998)).","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2002-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126810009","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
