nollan
california
coastal
argued
march
decided
june
california
coastal
commission
granted
permit
appellants
replace
small
bungalow
beachfront
lot
larger
house
upon
condition
allow
public
easement
pass
across
beach
located
two
public
beaches
county
superior
granted
appellants
writ
administrative
mandamus
directed
permit
condition
struck
however
state
appeal
reversed
ruling
imposition
condition
violate
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
incorporated
fourteenth
amendment
held
although
outright
taking
uncompensated
permanent
easement
violate
takings
clause
conditioning
appellants
rebuilding
permit
granting
easement
lawful
regulation
substantially
furthered
governmental
purposes
justify
denial
permit
government
power
forbid
particular
land
uses
order
advance
legitimate
purpose
includes
power
condition
use
upon
concession
owner
even
concession
property
rights
long
condition
furthers
governmental
purpose
advanced
justification
prohibiting
use
pp
commission
imposition
condition
treated
exercise
regulation
power
since
condition
serve
public
purposes
related
permit
requirement
put
forth
justify
protecting
public
ability
see
beach
assisting
public
overcoming
perceived
psychological
barrier
using
beach
preventing
beach
congestion
none
plausible
moreover
commission
justification
access
requirement
unrelated
regulation
part
comprehensive
program
provide
beach
access
arising
prior
coastal
permit
decisions
simply
expression
belief
public
interest
served
continuous
strip
publicly
accessible
beach
although
state
free
advance
comprehensive
program
exercising
eminent
domain
power
paying
access
easements
compel
coastal
residents
alone
contribute
realization
goal
pp
scalia
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
white
powell
joined
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
joined
post
blackmun
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
stevens
filed
dissenting
opinion
blackmun
joined
post
robert
best
argued
cause
appellants
briefs
ronald
zumbrun
timothy
bittle
andrea
sheridan
ordin
chief
assistant
attorney
general
california
argued
cause
appellee
brief
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
gregory
taylor
assistant
attorney
general
anthony
summers
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
jamee
jordan
patterson
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
solicitor
general
fried
assistant
attorney
general
habicht
deputy
solicitor
general
ayer
deputy
assistant
attorneys
general
marzulla
hookano
kmiec
richard
lazarus
peter
steenland
breezy
point
cooperative
walter
pozen
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
commonwealth
massachusetts
et
al
james
shannon
attorney
general
massachusetts
lee
breckenridge
nathaniel
lawrence
assistant
attorneys
general
attorneys
general
respective
follows
siegelman
alabama
john
steven
clark
arkansas
joseph
lieberman
connecticut
charles
oberly
delaware
robert
butterworth
florida
warren
price
iii
hawaii
neil
hartigan
illinois
thomas
miller
iowa
robert
stephan
kansas
william
guste
louisiana
james
tierney
maine
joseph
curran
maryland
hubert
humphrey
iii
minnesota
william
webster
missouri
robert
spire
nebraska
stephen
merrill
new
hampshire
cary
edwards
new
jersey
robert
abrams
new
york
lacy
thornburg
north
carolina
nicholas
spaeth
north
dakota
dave
frohnmayer
oregon
james
rhode
island
michael
cody
tennessee
jim
mattox
texas
jeffrey
amestoy
vermont
kenneth
eikenberry
washington
charles
brown
west
virginia
donald
hanaway
wisconsin
council
state
government
et
al
benna
ruth
solomon
joyce
holmes
benjamin
designated
california
cities
counties
clement
shute
natural
resources
defense
council
et
al
fredric
woocher
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
california
association
realtors
william
pfeiffer
national
association
home
builders
et
al
jerrold
fadem
michael
berger
gus
bauman
justice
scalia
delivered
opinion
james
marilyn
nollan
appeal
decision
california
appeal
ruling
california
coastal
commission
condition
grant
permission
rebuild
house
transfer
public
easement
across
beachfront
property
cal
app
cal
rptr
california
rejected
claim
imposition
condition
violates
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
incorporated
fourteenth
amendment
ibid
noted
probable
jurisdiction
nollans
beachfront
lot
ventura
county
california
north
property
faria
county
park
oceanside
public
park
public
beach
recreation
area
another
public
beach
area
known
locally
cove
lies
feet
south
lot
concrete
seawall
approximately
eight
feet
high
separates
beach
portion
nollans
property
rest
lot
historic
mean
high
tide
line
determines
lot
oceanside
boundary
nollans
originally
leased
property
option
buy
building
lot
small
bungalow
totaling
square
feet
time
rented
summer
vacationers
years
rental
use
however
building
fallen
disrepair
longer
rented
nollans
option
purchase
conditioned
promise
demolish
bungalow
replace
order
cal
pub
res
code
ann
west
required
obtain
coastal
development
permit
california
coastal
commission
february
submitted
permit
application
commission
proposed
demolish
existing
structure
replace
house
keeping
rest
neighborhood
nollans
informed
application
placed
administrative
calendar
commission
staff
recommended
permit
granted
subject
condition
allow
public
easement
pass
across
portion
property
bounded
mean
high
tide
line
one
side
seawall
side
make
easier
public
get
faria
county
park
cove
nollans
protested
imposition
condition
commission
overruled
objections
granted
permit
subject
recordation
deed
restriction
granting
easement
app
june
nollans
filed
petition
writ
administrative
mandamus
asking
ventura
county
superior
invalidate
access
condition
argued
condition
imposed
absent
evidence
proposed
development
direct
adverse
impact
public
access
beach
agreed
remanded
case
commission
full
evidentiary
hearing
issue
remand
commission
held
public
hearing
made
factual
findings
reaffirmed
imposition
condition
found
new
house
increase
blockage
view
ocean
thus
contributing
development
wall
residential
structures
prevent
public
psychologically
realizing
stretch
coastline
exists
nearby
every
right
visit
new
house
also
increase
private
use
shorefront
effects
construction
house
along
area
development
cumulatively
burden
public
ability
traverse
along
shorefront
therefore
commission
properly
require
nollans
offset
burden
providing
additional
lateral
access
public
beaches
form
easement
across
property
commission
also
noted
similarly
conditioned
coastal
development
permits
along
tract
land
conditioned
approved
commission
administrative
regulations
place
allowing
imposition
condition
remaining
involved
shorefront
property
nollans
filed
supplemental
petition
writ
administrative
mandamus
superior
argued
imposition
access
condition
violated
takings
clause
fifth
amendment
incorporated
fourteenth
amendment
superior
ruled
favor
statutory
grounds
finding
part
avoid
issues
constitutionality
california
coastal
act
cal
pub
res
code
ann
et
seq
west
authorized
commission
impose
public
access
conditions
coastal
development
permits
replacement
existing
home
new
one
proposed
development
adverse
impact
public
access
sea
app
view
administrative
record
provide
adequate
factual
basis
concluding
replacement
bungalow
house
create
direct
cumulative
burden
public
access
sea
accordingly
superior
granted
writ
mandamus
directed
permit
condition
struck
commission
appealed
california
appeal
appeal
pending
nollans
satisfied
condition
option
purchase
tearing
bungalow
building
new
house
bought
property
notify
commission
taking
action
appeal
reversed
superior
cal
app
cal
rptr
disagreed
superior
interpretation
coastal
act
finding
required
coastal
permit
construction
new
house
whose
floor
area
height
bulk
larger
house
replacing
conditioned
grant
access
cal
see
cal
pub
res
code
ann
also
ruled
requirement
violate
constitution
reasoning
earlier
case
appeal
grupe
california
coastal
cal
app
cal
rptr
case
found
long
project
contributed
need
public
access
even
project
standing
alone
created
need
access
even
indirect
relationship
access
exacted
need
project
contributed
imposition
access
condition
development
permit
sufficiently
related
burdens
created
project
constitutional
cal
app
cal
see
grupe
supra
cal
see
also
remmenga
california
coastal
cal
app
cal
rptr
appeal
dism
appeal
ruled
record
established
situation
respect
nollans
house
cal
app
cal
ruled
nollans
taking
claim
also
failed
although
condition
diminished
value
nollans
lot
deprive
reasonable
use
property
cal
see
grupe
supra
cal
since
appeal
view
statutory
constitutional
obstacle
imposition
access
condition
superior
erred
granting
writ
mandamus
nollans
appealed
raising
constitutional
question
ii
california
simply
required
nollans
make
easement
across
beachfront
available
public
permanent
basis
order
increase
public
access
beach
rather
conditioning
permit
rebuild
house
agreeing
doubt
taking
say
appropriation
public
easement
across
landowner
premises
constitute
taking
property
interest
rather
justice
brennan
contends
mere
restriction
use
post
use
words
manner
deprives
ordinary
meaning
indeed
one
principal
uses
eminent
domain
power
assure
government
able
require
conveyance
interests
long
pays
sackman
nichols
eminent
domain
rev
ed
see
perhaps
point
obvious
never
confronted
controversy
required
us
rule
upon
cases
analysis
effect
governmental
action
leads
conclusion
repeatedly
held
property
reserved
owner
private
use
right
exclude
others
one
essential
sticks
bundle
rights
commonly
characterized
property
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
quoting
kaiser
aetna
loretto
observed
governmental
action
results
permanent
physical
occupation
property
government
others
see
cases
uniformly
found
taking
extent
occupation
without
regard
whether
action
achieves
important
public
benefit
minimal
economic
impact
owner
think
permanent
physical
occupation
occurred
purposes
rule
individuals
given
permanent
continuous
right
pass
fro
real
property
may
continuously
traversed
even
though
particular
individual
permitted
station
permanently
upon
premises
justice
brennan
argues
might
ordinarily
case
california
constitution
prohibition
individual
exclu
ding
right
way
navigable
water
whenever
required
public
purpose
art
produces
different
result
post
see
also
post
number
difficulties
argument
obviously
right
way
sought
naturally
described
one
navigable
water
street
sea
along
least
highly
questionable
whether
text
california
constitution
prima
facie
application
situation
us
even
however
several
california
cases
suggest
justice
brennan
interpretation
effect
clause
erroneous
obtain
easements
access
across
private
property
state
must
proceed
eminent
domain
power
see
bolsa
land
burdick
cal
oakland
oakland
water
front
cal
heist
county
colusa
cal
app
cal
rptr
aptos
seascape
santa
cruz
cal
app
cal
rptr
none
cases
specifically
addressed
argument
art
allowed
public
cross
private
property
get
navigable
water
provision
meant
justice
brennan
believes
hard
see
invoked
see
also
op
cal
atty
spite
sweeping
provisions
art
injunction
therein
legislature
give
provisions
liberal
interpretation
reported
cases
california
adopted
general
rule
one
may
trespass
private
land
get
navigable
tidewaters
purpose
commerce
navigation
fishing
light
uncertainties
given
fact
justice
blackmun
notes
appeal
rest
decision
art
post
assuredly
take
upon
resolve
question
california
constitutional
law
first
instance
see
jenkins
anderson
doubly
inappropriate
since
commission
advance
argument
appeal
nollans
argued
superior
claim
public
right
access
asserted
quiet
title
action
see
points
authorities
support
motion
writ
administrative
mandamus
super
ct
cal
commission
possessing
claim
easement
probably
standing
california
law
bring
see
cal
code
civ
proc
ann
west
given
requiring
uncompensated
conveyance
easement
outright
violate
fourteenth
amendment
question
becomes
whether
requiring
conveyed
condition
issuing
permit
alters
outcome
long
recognized
regulation
effect
taking
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interests
den
owner
economically
viable
use
land
agins
tiburon
see
also
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
use
restriction
may
constitute
taking
reasonably
necessary
effectuation
substantial
government
purpose
cases
elaborated
standards
determining
constitutes
legitimate
state
interest
type
connection
regulation
state
interest
satisfies
requirement
former
substantially
advance
latter
made
clear
however
broad
range
governmental
purposes
regulations
satisfies
requirements
see
agins
tiburon
supra
scenic
zoning
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
supra
landmark
preservation
euclid
ambler
realty
residential
zoning
laitos
westfall
government
interference
private
interests
public
resources
harv
envtl
rev
commission
argues
among
permissible
purposes
protecting
public
ability
see
beach
assisting
public
overcoming
psychological
barrier
using
beach
created
developed
shorefront
preventing
congestion
public
beaches
assume
without
deciding
case
commission
unquestionably
able
deny
nollans
permit
outright
new
house
alone
reason
cumulative
impact
produced
conjunction
construction
substantially
impede
purposes
unless
denial
interfere
drastically
nollans
use
property
constitute
taking
see
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
supra
commission
argues
permit
condition
serves
legitimate
purpose
refusal
issue
permit
found
taking
refusal
issue
permit
constitute
taking
agree
thus
commission
attached
permit
condition
protected
public
ability
see
beach
notwithstanding
construction
new
house
example
height
limitation
width
restriction
ban
fences
long
commission
exercised
police
power
assumed
forbid
construction
house
altogether
imposition
condition
also
constitutional
moreover
come
closer
facts
present
case
condition
constitutional
even
consisted
requirement
nollans
provide
viewing
sport
property
passersby
whose
sighting
ocean
new
house
interfere
although
requirement
constituting
permanent
grant
continuous
access
property
considered
taking
attached
development
permit
commission
assumed
power
forbid
construction
house
order
protect
public
view
beach
must
surely
include
power
condition
construction
upon
concession
owner
even
concession
property
rights
serves
end
prohibition
designed
accomplish
purpose
legitimate
exercise
police
power
rather
taking
strange
conclude
providing
owner
alternative
prohibition
accomplishes
purpose
evident
constitutional
propriety
disappears
however
condition
substituted
prohibition
utterly
fails
end
advanced
justification
prohibition
essential
nexus
eliminated
situation
becomes
california
law
forbade
shouting
fire
crowded
theater
granted
dispensations
willing
contribute
state
treasury
ban
shouting
fire
core
exercise
state
police
power
protect
public
safety
thus
meet
even
stringent
standards
regulation
speech
adding
unrelated
condition
alters
purpose
one
may
legitimate
inadequate
sustain
ban
therefore
even
though
sense
requiring
tax
contribution
order
shout
fire
lesser
restriction
speech
outright
ban
pass
constitutional
muster
similarly
lack
nexus
condition
original
purpose
building
restriction
converts
purpose
something
purpose
becomes
quite
simply
obtaining
easement
serve
valid
governmental
purpose
without
payment
compensation
whatever
may
outer
limits
legitimate
state
interests
takings
context
one
short
unless
permit
condition
serves
governmental
purpose
development
ban
building
restriction
valid
regulation
land
use
plan
extortion
associates
atkinson
see
brief
amicus
curiae
see
also
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
iii
commission
claims
concedes
much
may
sustain
condition
issue
finding
reasonably
related
public
need
burden
nollans
new
house
creates
contributes
accept
purposes
discussion
commission
proposed
test
close
fit
condition
burden
required
find
case
meet
even
untailored
standards
commission
principal
contention
contrary
essentially
turns
play
word
access
nollans
new
house
commission
found
interfere
visual
access
beach
turn
along
shorefront
development
interfere
desire
people
drive
past
nollans
house
use
beach
thus
creating
psychological
barrier
access
nollans
new
house
also
process
altogether
clear
commission
opinion
presumably
potent
enough
offset
effects
psychological
barrier
increase
use
public
beaches
thus
creating
need
access
burdens
access
alleviated
requirement
nollans
provide
lateral
access
beach
rewriting
argument
eliminate
play
words
makes
clear
nothing
quite
impossible
understand
requirement
people
already
public
beaches
able
walk
across
nollans
property
reduces
obstacles
viewing
beach
created
new
house
also
impossible
understand
lowers
psychological
barrier
using
public
beaches
helps
remedy
additional
congestion
caused
construction
nollans
new
house
therefore
find
commission
imposition
permit
condition
treated
exercise
power
purposes
conclusion
point
consistent
approach
taken
every
considered
question
exception
california
state
courts
see
parks
watson
bethlehem
evangelical
lutheran
church
lakewood
aunt
hack
ridge
estates
planning
longboat
key
lands
end
app
pioneer
trust
savings
bank
mount
prospect
lampton
pinaire
app
schwing
baton
rouge
la
app
application
denied
la
howard
county
jjm
md
collis
bloomington
state
ex
rel
noland
louis
county
mo
billings
properties
yellowstone
county
mont
simpson
north
platte
neb
briar
west
lincoln
neb
associates
atkinson
longridge
builders
planning
bd
princeton
jenad
scarsdale
mackall
white
app
div
appeal
denied
frank
ansuini
cranston
college
station
turtle
rock
tex
call
west
jordan
utah
board
supervisors
james
city
county
rowe
jordan
menomonee
falls
appeal
dism
see
also
littlefield
afton
brief
national
association
home
builders
et
al
amici
curiae
justice
brennan
argues
imposition
access
requirement
irrational
version
commission
argument
reason
requirement
absence
person
looking
toward
beach
road
see
street
residential
structures
including
nollans
new
home
conclude
public
beach
nearby
however
person
sees
people
passing
repassing
along
dry
sand
behind
nollans
home
realize
public
beach
somewhere
vicinity
post
commission
action
however
based
opposite
factual
finding
wall
houses
completely
blocked
view
beach
person
looking
road
able
see
app
even
commission
made
finding
justice
brennan
proposes
however
certain
suffice
share
justice
brennan
confidence
commission
little
difficulty
future
utilizing
expertise
demonstrate
specific
connection
provisions
access
burdens
access
post
avoid
effect
today
decision
view
fifth
amendment
property
clause
pleading
requirement
compliance
exercise
cleverness
imagination
indicated
earlier
cases
describe
condition
abridgment
property
rights
police
power
substantial
advanc
ing
legitimate
state
interest
inclined
particularly
careful
adjective
actual
conveyance
property
made
condition
lifting
restriction
since
context
heightened
risk
purpose
avoidance
compensation
requirement
rather
stated
objective
left
commission
justification
access
requirement
unrelated
regulation
finally
commission
notes
several
existing
provisions
pass
repass
lateral
access
benefits
already
given
past
faria
beach
tract
applicants
result
prior
coastal
permit
decisions
access
required
condition
permit
part
comprehensive
program
provide
continuous
public
access
along
faria
beach
lots
undergo
development
redevelopment
app
reversed
footnotes
justice
brennan
also
suggests
commission
public
announcement
intention
condition
rebuilding
houses
transfer
easements
access
caused
nollans
reasonable
claim
expectation
able
exclude
members
public
walking
across
beach
post
cites
opinion
ruckelshaus
monsanto
support
peculiar
proposition
unilateral
claim
entitlement
government
alter
property
rights
monsanto
however
found
merely
takings
clause
violated
giving
effect
government
announcement
application
right
valuable
government
benefit
emphasis
added
obtaining
registration
insecticide
confer
upon
government
license
use
disclose
trade
secrets
contained
application
see
also
bowen
gilliard
ante
right
build
one
property
even
though
exercise
subjected
legitimate
permitting
requirements
remotely
described
governmental
benefit
thus
announcement
application
granting
permit
entail
yielding
property
interest
regarded
establishing
voluntary
exchange
found
occurred
monsanto
nollans
rights
altered
acquired
land
well
commission
begun
implement
policy
long
commission
deprived
prior
owners
easement
without
compensating
prior
owners
must
understood
transferred
full
property
rights
conveying
lot
contrary
justice
brennan
claim
post
opinions
establish
standards
applied
due
process
equal
protection
claims
contrary
verbal
formulations
takings
field
generally
quite
different
required
regulation
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interest
sought
achieved
agins
tiburon
state
rationally
decided
measure
adopted
might
achieve
state
objective
post
quoting
minnesota
clover
leaf
creamery
justice
brennan
relies
principally
equal
protection
case
minnesota
clover
leaf
creamery
supra
two
substantive
due
process
cases
williamson
lee
optical
oklahoma
lighting
missouri
support
standards
adopt
reason
believe
language
cases
gives
reason
disbelieve
long
regulation
property
issue
standards
takings
challenges
due
process
challenges
equal
protection
challenges
identical
reason
believe
long
regulation
speech
issue
standards
due
process
challenges
equal
protection
challenges
first
amendment
challenges
identical
goldblatt
hempstead
appear
assume
inquiries
assumption
inconsistent
formulations
later
cases
nollans
singled
bear
burden
california
attempt
remedy
problems
although
contributed
coastal
landowners
state
action
even
otherwise
valid
might
violate
either
incorporated
takings
clause
equal
protection
clause
one
principal
purposes
takings
clause
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
see
also
san
diego
gas
electric
san
diego
brennan
dissenting
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
basis
nollans
challenge
one
expect
regime
kind
leveraging
police
power
allowed
produce
stringent
regulation
state
waives
accomplish
purposes
leading
lesser
realization
goals
purportedly
sought
served
result
lenient
nontradeable
development
restrictions
thus
importance
purpose
underlying
prohibition
justify
imposition
unrelated
conditions
eliminating
prohibition
positively
militates
practice
justice
brennan
notes
commission
also
argued
construction
new
house
increase
private
use
immediately
adjacent
public
tidelands
turn
might
result
disputes
nollans
public
location
boundary
post
quoting
app
risk
boundary
disputes
however
inherent
right
exclude
others
one
property
construction
justify
mandatory
dedication
sort
buffer
zone
order
avoid
boundary
disputes
construction
addition
house
near
public
street
moreover
buffer
zone
boundary
well
unless
zone
land
limits
neighbors
course
case
creation
achieves
nothing
except
shift
location
boundary
dispute
private
owner
land
true
distinctive
situation
nollans
property
seawall
established
clear
demarcation
public
easement
since
lands
condition
applies
convenient
reference
point
avoidance
boundary
disputes
even
obviously
others
purpose
regulation
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
joins
dissenting
appellants
case
sought
construct
new
dwelling
beach
lot
diminish
visual
access
beach
move
private
development
closer
public
tidelands
commission
reasonably
concluded
buildout
individually
cumulatively
threatens
public
access
shore
sought
offset
encroachment
obtaining
assurance
public
may
walk
along
shoreline
order
gain
access
ocean
finds
illegitimate
exercise
police
power
maintains
reasonable
relationship
effect
development
condition
imposed
first
problem
conclusion
imposes
standard
precision
exercise
state
police
power
discredited
better
part
century
furthermore
even
cramped
standard
permit
condition
imposed
case
directly
responds
specific
type
burden
access
created
appellants
development
finally
review
factors
deemed
significant
takings
analysis
makes
clear
commission
action
implicates
none
concerns
underlying
takings
clause
thus
struck
commission
reasonable
effort
respond
intensified
development
along
california
coast
behalf
landowners
make
claim
reasonable
expectations
disrupted
short
given
appellants
windfall
expense
public
conclusion
permit
condition
imposed
appellants
unreasonable
withstand
analysis
first
demands
degree
exactitude
inconsistent
standard
reviewing
rationality
state
exercise
police
power
welfare
citizens
second
even
nature
condition
imposed
must
identical
precise
burden
access
created
appellants
requirement
plainly
satisfied
dispute
police
power
encompasses
authority
impose
conditions
private
development
see
agins
tiburon
penn
central
transportation
new
york
city
gorieb
fox
also
commonplace
review
rationality
state
exercise
police
power
demands
state
rationally
decided
measure
adopted
might
achieve
state
objective
minnesota
clover
leaf
creamery
emphasis
original
case
california
employed
police
power
order
condition
development
upon
preservation
public
access
ocean
tidelands
coastal
commission
chosen
denied
nollans
request
development
permit
since
property
remained
economically
viable
without
requested
new
development
instead
state
sought
accommodate
nollans
desire
new
development
condition
development
diminish
overall
amount
public
access
coastline
appellants
proposed
development
reduce
public
access
restricting
visual
access
beach
contributing
increased
need
community
facilities
moving
private
development
closer
public
beach
property
commission
sought
offset
diminution
access
thereby
preserve
overall
balance
access
requesting
deed
restriction
ensure
lateral
access
right
public
pass
repass
along
dry
sand
parallel
shoreline
order
reach
tidelands
ocean
expert
opinion
coastal
commission
development
conditioned
restriction
fairly
attend
public
private
interests
finds
fault
measure
regards
condition
insufficiently
tailored
address
precise
type
reduction
access
produced
new
development
nollans
development
blocks
visual
access
tells
us
commission
seeks
preserve
lateral
access
along
coastline
thus
concludes
state
acted
irrationally
narrow
conception
rationality
however
long
since
discredited
judicial
arrogation
legislative
authority
make
scientific
precision
criterion
constitutional
power
subject
state
intolerable
supervision
hostile
basic
principles
government
sproles
binford
cf
keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
takings
clause
never
read
require
courts
calculate
whether
specific
individual
suffered
burdens
excess
benefits
received
long
ago
declared
regard
various
forms
restriction
use
property
interferes
way
extent
owner
general
right
dominion
property
rest
justification
upon
reasons
arisen
recent
times
result
great
increase
concentration
population
urban
communities
vast
changes
extent
complexity
problems
modern
city
life
state
legislatures
city
councils
deal
situation
practical
standpoint
better
qualified
courts
determine
necessity
character
degree
regulation
new
perplexing
conditions
require
conclusions
disturbed
courts
unless
clearly
arbitrary
unreasonable
gorieb
citations
omitted
demand
precise
fit
based
assumption
private
landowners
case
possess
reasonable
expectation
regarding
use
land
public
attempted
disrupt
fact
situation
precisely
reverse
private
landowners
interlopers
public
expectation
access
considerably
antedates
private
development
coast
article
california
constitution
adopted
declares
individual
partnership
corporation
claiming
possessing
frontage
tidal
lands
harbor
bay
inlet
estuary
navigable
water
state
shall
permitted
exclude
right
way
water
whenever
required
public
purpose
destroy
obstruct
free
navigation
water
legislature
shall
enact
laws
give
liberal
construction
provision
access
navigable
waters
state
shall
always
attainable
people
thereof
congress
expressly
stated
passing
czma
light
competing
demands
urgent
need
protect
give
high
priority
natural
systems
coastal
zone
present
state
local
institutional
arrangements
planning
regulating
land
water
uses
areas
inadequate
thus
puzzling
characterizes
justification
ante
exercise
police
power
provide
continuous
public
access
along
faria
beach
lots
undergo
development
redevelopment
ibid
quoting
app
commission
determination
certain
types
development
jeopardize
public
access
ocean
development
conditioned
preservation
access
essence
responsible
planning
use
unreasonably
demanding
standard
determining
rationality
state
regulation
area
thus
hamper
innovative
efforts
preserve
increasingly
fragile
national
resource
even
accept
unusual
demand
precise
match
condition
imposed
specific
type
burden
access
created
appellants
state
action
easily
satisfies
requirement
first
lateral
access
condition
serves
dissipate
impression
beach
lies
behind
wall
homes
along
shore
private
use
requires
exceptional
imaginative
powers
find
plausible
commission
point
average
person
passing
along
road
front
phalanx
imposing
permanent
residences
including
appellants
new
home
likely
conclude
particular
portion
shore
open
public
however
person
see
numerous
people
passing
repassing
along
dry
sand
conveys
message
beach
fact
open
use
public
furthermore
persons
go
public
beach
away
able
look
coastline
see
persons
continuous
access
tidelands
observe
signs
proclaim
public
right
access
dry
sand
burden
produced
diminution
visual
access
impression
beach
open
public
thus
directly
alleviated
provision
public
access
dry
sand
therefore
unrealistically
limited
conception
measures
reasonably
chosen
mitigate
burden
produced
diminution
visual
access
second
flaw
analysis
fit
burden
exaction
fundamental
assumes
burden
coastal
commission
concerned
blockage
visual
access
beach
incorrect
commission
specifically
stated
report
support
permit
condition
commission
finds
applicants
proposed
development
present
increase
view
blockage
increase
private
use
shorefront
impact
burden
public
ability
traverse
along
shorefront
app
emphasis
added
declared
possibility
public
may
get
impression
beachfront
longer
available
public
use
due
encroaching
nature
private
use
immediately
adjacent
public
use
well
visual
block
increased
residential
impacting
visual
quality
beachfront
emphasis
added
record
prepared
commission
replete
references
threat
public
access
along
coastline
resulting
seaward
encroachment
private
development
along
beach
whose
mean
line
constantly
shifting
commission
observed
report
faria
beach
shoreline
fluctuates
year
depending
seasons
accompanying
storms
public
always
able
traverse
shoreline
mean
high
tide
line
result
boundary
publicly
owned
tidelands
privately
owned
beach
stable
one
existing
seawall
located
near
mean
high
water
line
beach
largest
seawall
feet
mean
mark
uring
period
year
beach
suffers
erosion
mean
high
water
line
appears
located
either
beyond
existing
seawall
ibid
expansion
private
development
appellants
lot
toward
seawall
thus
increase
private
use
immediately
adjacent
public
tidelands
potential
causing
adverse
impacts
public
ability
traverse
shoreline
commission
explained
placement
private
use
adjacent
public
tidelands
potential
creating
use
conflicts
applicants
public
results
new
private
use
encroachment
areas
private
public
property
create
situations
landowners
intimidate
public
seek
prevent
using
public
tidelands
disputes
two
parties
exact
boundary
private
public
ownership
located
applicants
project
result
seaward
encroachment
private
use
area
clouded
title
new
private
use
subject
encroachment
area
result
use
conflict
private
public
entities
subject
shorefront
therefore
simply
wrong
reasonable
relationship
permit
condition
specific
type
burden
public
access
created
appellants
proposed
development
even
desirous
assuming
added
responsibility
closely
monitoring
regulation
development
along
california
coast
record
reveals
rational
public
action
conceivable
standard
ii
fact
commission
action
legitimate
exercise
police
power
course
insulate
takings
challenge
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
conventional
takings
analysis
underscores
implausibility
holding
demonstrates
exercise
california
police
power
implicates
none
concerns
underlie
takings
jurisprudence
reviewing
takings
clause
claim
regarded
particularly
significant
nature
governmental
action
economic
impact
regulation
especially
extent
regulation
interferes
expectations
penn
central
character
government
action
case
imposition
condition
permit
approval
allows
public
continue
access
coast
physical
intrusion
permitted
deed
restriction
minimal
public
permitted
right
pass
repass
along
coast
area
seawall
mean
mark
app
area
widest
feet
means
even
without
permit
condition
public
right
access
permits
pass
average
within
feet
seawall
passage
closer
rocky
seawall
make
appellants
even
less
visible
public
passage
along
area
farther
beach
intrusiveness
passage
even
less
intrusion
resulting
required
dedication
sidewalk
front
private
residences
exactions
commonplace
conditions
approval
development
furthermore
line
shifts
throughout
year
moving
beyond
seawall
public
passage
portion
year
either
impossible
occur
appellant
property
finally
although
commission
authority
provide
either
passive
active
recreational
use
property
chose
least
intrusive
alternative
mere
right
pass
repass
made
clear
prune
yard
shopping
center
robins
physical
access
private
property
creates
takings
problem
unreasonably
impair
value
use
property
appellants
make
tenable
claim
either
enjoyment
property
value
diminished
public
ability
merely
pass
repass
feet
closer
seawall
beyond
appellants
house
located
prune
yard
also
relevant
acknowledged
case
public
access
rested
upon
state
constitutional
provision
construed
create
rights
use
private
property
strangers
case
course
state
also
acting
protect
state
constitutional
right
see
supra
quoting
art
california
constitution
constitutional
provision
guaranteeing
public
access
ocean
legislature
shall
enact
laws
give
liberal
construction
provision
access
navigable
waters
state
shall
always
attainable
people
thereof
cal
art
emphasis
added
provision
explicit
basis
statutory
directive
provide
public
access
along
coast
new
development
projects
cal
pub
res
code
ann
west
construed
state
judiciary
permit
passage
private
land
necessary
gain
access
tidelands
grupe
california
coastal
cal
app
cal
rptr
physical
access
perimeter
appellants
property
issue
case
thus
results
directly
state
enforcement
state
constitution
finally
character
regulation
case
unilateral
government
action
condition
approval
development
request
submitted
appellants
state
sought
interfere
property
interest
responded
appellants
proposal
intensify
development
coast
appellants
chose
submit
new
development
application
claim
property
interest
approval
aware
approval
development
conditioned
preservation
adequate
public
access
ocean
state
initiated
action
appellants
property
nollans
proposed
intensive
development
coastal
zone
never
subject
provision
challenge
examination
economic
impact
commission
action
reinforces
conclusion
taking
occurred
allowing
appellants
intensify
development
along
coast
exchange
ensuring
public
access
ocean
classic
instance
government
action
produces
reciprocity
advantage
pennsylvania
coal
appellants
allowed
replace
beach
home
residence
attached
garage
resulting
development
covering
square
feet
lot
development
obviously
significantly
increases
value
appellants
property
appellants
make
contention
increase
offset
diminution
value
resulting
deed
restriction
much
less
restriction
made
property
less
valuable
without
new
construction
furthermore
appellants
gain
additional
benefit
commission
permit
condition
program
able
walk
along
beach
beyond
confines
property
commission
required
deed
restrictions
condition
approving
new
beach
developments
thus
appellants
benefit
private
landowners
members
public
fact
new
development
permit
requests
conditioned
preservation
public
access
ultimately
appellants
claim
economic
injury
flawed
rests
assumption
entitlement
full
value
new
development
appellants
submitted
proposal
intensive
development
coast
commission
obligation
approve
argue
regulation
designed
ameliorate
impact
development
deprives
full
value
improvements
even
novel
claim
somehow
cognizable
significant
interest
anticipated
gains
traditionally
viewed
less
compelling
interests
andrus
allard
respect
appellants
expectations
appellants
make
reasonable
claim
expectation
able
exclude
members
public
crossing
edge
property
gain
access
ocean
axiomatic
course
state
law
source
strands
constitute
property
owner
bundle
property
rights
general
proposition
law
real
property
constitution
left
individual
develop
administer
hughes
washington
stewart
concurring
see
also
borax
consolidated
los
angeles
rights
interests
tideland
subject
sovereignty
state
matters
local
law
case
state
constitution
explicitly
one
possessing
frontage
navigable
water
state
shall
permitted
exclude
right
way
water
whenever
required
public
purpose
cal
art
state
code
expressly
provides
save
exceptions
relevant
ublic
access
nearest
public
roadway
shoreline
along
coast
shall
provided
new
development
projects
cal
pub
res
code
ann
west
coastal
commission
interpretative
guidelines
make
clear
fulfillment
commission
constitutional
statutory
duty
requires
approval
new
coastline
development
conditioned
upon
provisions
ensuring
lateral
public
access
ocean
app
time
appellants
permit
request
commission
conditioned
proposals
coastal
new
development
faria
family
beach
tract
provision
deed
restrictions
ensuring
lateral
access
along
shore
finally
faria
family
leased
beach
property
since
early
part
century
faria
family
lessees
including
nollans
interfered
public
use
beachfront
within
tract
long
public
use
limited
pass
repass
lateral
access
along
shore
ibid
california
therefore
clearly
established
power
exclusion
appellants
seek
compensation
simply
strand
bundle
appellants
property
rights
appellants
never
acted
given
state
affairs
appellants
claim
deed
restriction
deprived
reasonable
expectation
exclude
property
persons
desiring
gain
access
sea
even
somehow
concede
expectation
right
exclude
appellants
clearly
notice
requesting
new
development
permit
condition
approval
provision
ensuring
public
lateral
access
shore
thus
surely
expectation
obtain
approval
new
development
exercise
right
exclusion
afterward
respect
case
quite
similar
ruckelshaus
monsanto
monsanto
respondent
submitted
trade
data
environmental
protection
agency
epa
purpose
obtaining
registration
certain
pesticides
company
claimed
agency
disclosure
certain
data
accordance
relevant
regulatory
statute
constituted
taking
conceded
data
question
constituted
property
state
law
also
found
however
certain
data
submitted
agency
congress
made
clear
limited
confidentiality
given
data
submitted
registration
purposes
observed
statute
served
inform
monsanto
various
conditions
data
might
released
stated
despite
provisions
statute
monsanto
chose
submit
requisite
data
order
receive
registration
hardly
argue
reasonable
expectations
disturbed
epa
acts
use
disclose
data
manner
authorized
law
time
submission
long
monsanto
aware
conditions
data
submitted
conditions
rationally
related
legitimate
government
interest
voluntary
submission
data
applicant
exchange
economic
advantages
registration
hardly
called
taking
standard
takings
clause
analysis
thus
indicates
employs
unduly
restrictive
standard
police
power
rationality
find
taking
neither
character
governmental
action
nature
private
interest
affected
raise
takings
concern
result
invalidates
regulation
represents
reasonable
adjustment
burdens
benefits
development
along
california
coast
iii
foregoing
analysis
makes
clear
state
taken
property
appellants
imposition
permit
condition
case
represents
state
reasonable
exercise
police
power
coastal
commission
drawn
expertise
preserve
balance
private
development
public
access
requiring
project
intensifies
development
increasingly
crowded
california
coast
must
offset
gains
public
access
normal
standard
review
police
power
provision
eminently
reasonable
even
accepting
novel
insistence
precise
quid
pro
quo
burdens
benefits
reasonable
relationship
public
benefit
burden
created
appellants
development
movement
development
closer
ocean
creates
prospect
encroachment
public
tidelands
fluctuation
mean
line
deed
restriction
ensures
disputes
boundary
private
public
property
deter
public
exercising
right
access
sea
furthermore
consideration
commission
action
traditional
takings
analysis
underscores
absence
viable
takings
claim
deed
restriction
permits
public
pass
repass
along
narrow
strip
beach
feet
closer
seawall
periphery
appellants
property
appellants
almost
surely
enjoyed
increase
value
property
even
restriction
allowed
build
significantly
larger
new
home
garage
lot
finally
appellants
claim
disruption
expectation
interest
right
exclude
public
state
law
even
full
advance
notice
new
development
along
coast
conditioned
provisions
continued
public
access
ocean
fortunately
decision
regarding
application
commission
permit
program
probably
little
ultimate
impact
either
parcel
particular
commission
program
general
preliminary
study
senior
lands
agent
state
attorney
general
office
indicates
portion
beach
issue
case
likely
belongs
public
app
since
full
study
completed
time
appellants
permit
application
deed
restriction
requested
without
regard
possibility
applicant
proposing
development
public
land
furthermore
analysis
lands
agent
also
indicated
public
obtained
prescriptive
right
use
faria
beach
seawall
ocean
superior
explicitly
stated
ruling
commission
permit
condition
issue
part
opinion
intended
foreclose
public
opportunity
adjudicate
possibility
public
rights
appellants
beach
acquired
prescriptive
use
respect
permit
condition
program
general
commission
little
difficulty
future
utilizing
expertise
demonstrate
specific
connection
provisions
access
burdens
access
produced
new
development
neither
commission
report
state
briefs
argument
highlighted
particular
threat
lateral
access
created
appellants
development
project
defending
action
state
emphasized
general
point
overall
access
beach
preserved
since
diminution
access
created
project
offset
gain
lateral
access
approach
understandable
given
state
relied
reasonable
assumption
action
justified
normal
standard
review
determining
legitimate
exercises
state
police
power
future
alerted
apparently
demanding
requirement
need
make
clear
provision
public
access
directly
responds
particular
type
burden
access
created
new
development
even
believe
record
case
satisfies
requirement
acknowledge
record
documentation
impact
coastal
development
indicates
commission
little
problem
presenting
findings
way
avoids
takings
problem
nonetheless
important
point
insistence
precise
accounting
system
case
insensitive
fact
increasing
intensity
development
many
areas
calls
farsighted
comprehensive
planning
takes
account
interdependence
land
uses
cumulative
impact
development
one
scholar
noted
property
exist
isolation
particular
parcels
tied
one
another
complex
ways
property
accurately
described
inextricably
part
network
relationships
neither
limited
usefully
defined
property
boundaries
legal
system
accustomed
dealing
frequently
use
given
parcel
property
time
effectively
use
demand
upon
property
beyond
border
user
sax
takings
private
property
public
rights
yale
omitted
dissent
see
also
williamson
lee
optical
oklahoma
law
need
every
respect
logically
consistent
aims
constitutional
enough
evil
hand
correction
might
thought
particular
legislative
measure
rational
way
correct
lighting
missouri
recent
decisions
make
plain
sit
weigh
wisdom
legislation
decide
whether
policy
expresses
offends
public
welfare
tate
legislatures
constitutional
authority
experiment
new
techniques
entitled
standard
public
welfare
notwithstanding
suggestion
otherwise
ante
standard
reviewing
threshold
question
whether
exercise
police
power
legitimate
uniform
one
stated
years
ago
addressing
takings
challenge
government
regulation
term
police
power
connotes
conceptional
limit
public
encroachment
upon
private
interests
except
substitution
familiar
standard
reasonableness
generally
refrained
announcing
specific
criteria
classic
statement
rule
lawton
steele
still
valid
today
must
appear
first
interests
public
require
government
interference
second
means
reasonably
necessary
accomplishment
purpose
unduly
oppressive
upon
individuals
even
rule
applied
strict
precision
often
said
debatable
questions
reasonableness
courts
legislature
sproles
binford
goldblatt
hempstead
course
government
action
may
valid
exercise
police
power
still
violate
specific
provisions
constitution
justice
scalia
certainly
correct
observing
challenges
founded
upon
provisions
reviewed
different
standards
ante
consideration
factors
identified
penn
central
supra
instance
provides
analytical
framework
protecting
values
underlying
takings
clause
distinctive
approaches
utilized
give
effect
constitutional
provisions
far
different
however
use
different
standards
review
address
threshold
issue
rationality
government
action
declared
riverside
bayview
homes
requirement
person
obtain
permit
engaging
certain
use
property
take
property
sense
existence
permit
system
implies
permission
may
granted
leaving
landowner
free
use
property
desired
moreover
even
permit
denied
may
viable
uses
available
owner
permit
denied
effect
denial
prevent
economically
viable
use
land
question
said
taking
occurred
slightest
doubt
government
refused
allow
dredging
ground
impaired
navigation
bay
conditioned
approval
dredging
petitioners
agreement
comply
various
measures
deemed
appropriate
promotion
navigation
list
cases
cited
support
approach
ante
includes
instance
state
sought
vindicate
preexisting
rights
access
navigable
water
consists
principally
cases
involving
requirement
dedication
land
condition
subdivision
approval
dedication
course
requires
surrender
ownership
property
rather
case
mere
restriction
use
case
pertaining
beach
access
among
cited
mackall
white
app
div
case
found
subdivision
application
conditioned
upon
declaration
landowner
hinder
public
using
trail
used
gain
access
bay
trail
used
despite
posted
warnings
prohibiting
passage
despite
owner
resistance
use
case
unlike
one
neither
state
constitution
state
statute
administrative
practice
conduct
landowner
operated
create
reasonable
expectation
right
public
access
may
state
briefs
argument
contended
merely
permit
condition
serve
preserve
overall
public
access
offsetting
diminution
access
resulting
project
inter
alia
blocking
public
view
beach
state
position
doubt
reflected
reasonable
assumption
evaluate
rationality
exercise
police
power
accordance
traditional
standard
review
attempt
substitute
judgment
best
way
preserve
overall
public
access
ocean
faria
family
beach
tract
commission
public
access
shoreline
interpretative
guidelines
state
provision
lateral
access
recognizes
potential
conflicts
public
private
use
creates
type
access
allows
public
move
freely
along
tidelands
area
clearly
delineated
distinguished
private
use
areas
thus
need
determination
set
forth
ublic
esources
ode
measured
terms
providing
access
buffers
public
access
tidelands
burdens
generated
access
private
development
app
suggests
risk
boundary
disputes
inherent
right
exclude
others
one
property
thus
serve
purpose
support
permit
condition
ante
commission
sought
deed
restriction
however
address
generalized
problem
inherent
system
property
address
particular
problem
created
shifting
line
along
faria
beach
unlike
typical
area
boundary
delineated
reasonably
clearly
problem
faria
beach
boundary
constant
area
open
public
use
therefore
frequently
question
discussion
supra
demonstrates
commission
clearly
tailored
permit
condition
precisely
address
specific
problem
acknowledges
nollans
seawall
provide
clear
demarcation
public
easement
thus
avoid
merely
shifting
location
boundary
dispute
private
owner
land
ibid
nonetheless
faults
commission
every
property
subject
regulation
may
feature
case
however
challenge
permit
condition
applied
nollans
property
presence
absence
seawalls
property
irrelevant
see
bellefontaine
neighbors
kelley
realty
bldg
mo
app
allen
stockwell
see
generally
shultz
kelley
subdivision
improvement
requirements
guarantees
primer
urban
contemp
commission
acted
accordance
guidelines
determining
width
area
passage
prohibiting
recreational
use
property
guidelines
state
may
necessary
occasion
provide
less
normal
accessway
along
dry
sand
may
necessary
protect
privacy
rights
adjacent
property
owners
app
also
provide
advice
selecting
type
public
use
may
permitted
pass
repass
topographic
constraints
site
make
use
beach
dangerous
habitat
values
shoreline
adversely
impacted
public
use
shoreline
accessway
may
encroach
closer
feet
residential
structure
accessway
may
limited
right
public
pass
repass
along
access
area
purposes
guidelines
pass
repass
defined
right
walk
run
along
shoreline
provide
public
access
along
shoreline
allow
additional
use
accessway
severely
limits
public
ability
enjoy
adjacent
state
owned
tidelands
restricting
potential
use
access
areas
form
access
dedication
used
necessary
protect
habitat
values
site
topographic
constraints
warrant
restriction
necessary
protect
privacy
landowner
time
nollans
permit
application
permit
requests
development
along
faria
beach
conditioned
deed
restrictions
ensuring
lateral
public
access
along
shoreline
app
suggests
ruckelshaus
monsanto
distinguishable
government
regulation
property
case
condition
receipt
government
benefit
regulation
takes
form
restriction
right
build
one
property
remotely
described
government
benefit
ante
proffered
distinction
persuasive
monsanto
nollans
hold
property
whose
use
subject
regulation
monsanto
may
sell
property
without
obtaining
government
approval
nollans
may
build
new
development
property
without
government
approval
obtaining
approval
much
government
benefit
nollans
monsanto
somehow
suggesting
right
build
one
property
privileged
natural
rights
status
argument
curious
one
traditional
labor
theory
value
justification
property
rights
instance
see
locke
second
treatise
civil
government
gough
ed
monsanto
superior
claim
chemical
formulae
constitute
property
came
virtue
monsanto
efforts
senior
lands
agent
report
commission
based
observations
presently
faria
beach
waterward
existing
seawalls
lies
mean
high
tide
level
fall
public
domain
sovereign
category
ownership
app
emphasis
added
senior
lands
agent
report
stated
based
past
experience
investigation
date
property
opinion
area
seaward
revetment
pacific
coast
highway
faria
beach
well
area
seaward
revetments
built
protect
faria
beach
community
public
owned
impliedly
dedicated
public
passive
recreational
use
california
appeal
noted
since
permission
granted
construct
building
units
within
land
jurisdiction
coastal
commission
addition
pressure
development
along
coast
expected
increase
since
approximately
california
population
lives
within
miles
coast
grupe
california
coastal
cal
app
cal
rptr
see
also
coastal
zone
management
act
increasing
demands
coastal
zones
resulted
loss
living
marine
resources
wildlife
areas
permanent
adverse
changes
ecological
systems
decreasing
open
space
public
use
shoreline
erosion
believe
afforded
considerable
latitude
regulating
private
development
without
fear
regulatory
efforts
often
found
constitute
taking
regulation
denies
private
property
owner
use
enjoyment
land
found
effect
taking
however
believe
compensation
appropriate
remedy
constitutional
violation
san
diego
gas
electric
san
diego
brennan
dissenting
emphasis
added
therefore
see
dissent
completely
consistent
position
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
los
angeles
county
justice
blackmun
dissenting
understand
opinion
case
implicate
way
doctrine
certainly
reason
address
issue
appeal
california
rest
decision
art
california
constitution
parties
base
arguments
doctrine
disagree
rigid
interpretation
necessary
correlation
burden
created
development
condition
imposed
pursuant
state
police
power
mitigate
burden
problems
country
faces
require
creative
solutions
advanced
eye
eye
mentality
close
nexus
benefits
burdens
imposes
permit
conditions
creates
anomaly
ordinary
requirement
state
exercise
police
power
need
rationally
based
see
minnesota
clover
leaf
creamery
view
easement
exacted
appellants
problems
development
created
adequately
related
governmental
interest
providing
public
access
beach
coastal
development
nature
makes
public
access
shore
generally
difficult
appellants
structure
part
general
development
particular
diminishes
public
visual
access
ocean
decreases
public
sense
may
physical
access
beach
losses
access
counteracted
least
part
condition
appellants
construction
permitting
public
passage
ensures
access
along
beach
traditional
takings
analysis
compels
conclusion
taking
governmental
action
valid
exercise
police
power
far
record
reveals
nonexistent
economic
effect
value
appellants
property
expectations
diminished
significant
nollans
notice
easement
purchased
property
public
use
beach
permitted
decades
reasons
respectfully
dissent
justice
stevens
justice
blackmun
joins
dissenting
debate
justice
brennan
illustrates
extremely
important
point
concerning
government
regulation
use
privately
owned
real
estate
intelligent
public
officials
may
good
faith
disagree
validity
specific
types
regulation
even
wisest
lawyers
acknowledge
great
uncertainty
scope
takings
jurisprudence
yet
remarkable
ruling
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
los
angeles
county
local
governments
officials
must
pay
price
necessarily
vague
standards
area
law
dissent
san
diego
gas
electric
san
diego
justice
brennan
proposed
brand
new
constitutional
rule
argued
mistake
one
majority
believes
california
coastal
commission
made
case
automatically
give
rise
pecuniary
liability
temporary
taking
notwithstanding
unprecedented
chilling
effect
rule
obviously
public
officials
charged
responsibility
drafting
implementing
regulations
designed
protect
environment
public
welfare
six
members
recently
endorsed
justice
brennan
novel
proposal
see
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
supra
write
today
identify
severe
tension
dramatic
development
law
view
expressed
justice
brennan
dissent
case
public
interest
served
encouraging
state
agencies
exercise
considerable
flexibility
responding
private
desires
development
way
threatens
preservation
public
resources
see
ante
like
hat
justice
brennan
donned
today
better
one
wore
san
diego
persuaded
better
legal
arguments
even
position
prevailed
case
however
little
solace
landuse
planners
still
left
guessing
react
next
case
one
case
demonstrates
rule
liability
created
first
english
shortsighted
one
like
justice
brennan
hope
broader
vision
ultimately
prevails
ante
respectfully
dissent
constitutional
rule
propose
requires
finds
police
power
regulation
effected
taking
government
entity
must
pay
compensation
period
commencing
date
regulation
first
effected
taking
ending
date
government
entity
chooses
rescind
otherwise
amend
regulation