| Court: | US Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Oregon does lots of land use regulation. Tigard wants to provide alternatives to car transport. When Dolan wants to re-model her store (to enlarge it, and the parking lot), they require some land set aside for the creek on the property, due to extra runoff. And, then, also a bike path. |
| Posture: | OR Supreme Court said the building permit could be conditioned on dedicating part of the property for flood control and traffic improvements. |
| Issue: | Does the degree of the city's exactions bear the necessary relationship to the impact of the proposed development? |
| Holding: | No. |
| Rule: | There must be an essential nexus between the legitimate state interest and the projected impact of the development. (citing Nollen, quoting Penn Central). |
| Reasoning: | There's no showing here that the bicycle trips generated by the development necessitate the easement. Maybe it's true, but the city is just asserting it. |
| Dicta: | Dissent: there's no sign that the easement would harm her profitability. |