| Venue: | SCOTUS |
| Facts: | Lucas paid $975K for two residential lots. 2 years later, the Beachfront Management Act of 1988 bars building any permanent habitable structures. |
| Posture: | Finding for plaintiff at trial (parcels rendered "valueless"). SC SC reverses, saying that when legislation prevents a serious public harm, compensation isn't required. Cert granted. |
| Issue: | What does the taking clause mean, with respect to regulation? |
| Holding: | This looks like a taking. Reversed and remanded. |
| Rule: | Deciding whether a regulation is a taking means weighing the harm it is designed to counter (to lands or neighbors) by preventing the claimant's activities, the value of the claimant's proposed activities, and the ease with which the alleged harm can be avoided by the claimant, the government, or other landowners. |
| Reasoning: | Clearly the government's power to redefine the list of rights that
make up property ownership is constrained by some constitutional
limits. We've generally tried to stay away from any sort of set
formula for determining how much taking is too much, but there
have always been som clear-cut cases: physical invasion, and
denial of all economically beneficial usage of land.
Total deprivation of beneficial use is the equivalent of physical appropriation. We recognize the concept of the "Average Reciprocity of Advantage," and the fact that not every single diminution in value can be compensated, if government is to go on. At the same time, just saying you're mitigating a harm is not enough to overcome the takings aspect of a regulation. In fact, the distinction between "harm preventing" and "benefit conferring" is basically propaganda. |
| Dicta: | |