preservation
council
et
al
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
et
argued
january
decided
april
respondent
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
trpa
imposed
two
moratoria
totaling
months
development
lake
tahoe
basin
formulating
comprehensive
plan
area
petitioners
real
estate
owners
affected
moratoria
association
representing
owners
filed
parallel
suits
later
consolidated
claiming
trpa
actions
constituted
taking
property
without
compensation
district
found
trpa
effected
partial
taking
analysis
set
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
however
concluded
moratoria
constitute
taking
categorical
rule
announced
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
trpa
temporarily
deprived
petitioners
economically
viable
use
land
appeal
trpa
successfully
challenged
district
takings
determination
finding
question
facial
challenge
whether
lucas
rule
applied
ninth
circuit
held
regulations
temporary
impact
petitioners
fee
interest
categorical
taking
occurred
lucas
applied
relatively
rare
case
regulation
permanently
denies
productive
use
entire
parcel
whereas
moratoria
involved
temporal
slice
fee
interest
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
concerned
question
whether
compensation
appropriate
remedy
temporary
taking
whether
taking
occurred
also
concluded
penn
central
ad
hoc
balancing
approach
proper
framework
analyzing
whether
taking
occurred
petitioners
challenged
district
conclusion
make
claim
penn
central
factors
held
moratoria
ordered
trpa
per
se
takings
property
requiring
compensation
takings
clause
pp
although
physical
takings
jurisprudence
part
involves
straightforward
application
per
se
rules
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
characterized
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
penn
central
concurring
longstanding
distinction
physical
regulatory
takings
makes
inappropriate
treat
precedent
one
controlling
petitioners
rely
first
english
lucas
regulatory
takings
cases
argue
categorical
rule
whenever
government
imposes
deprivation
economically
viable
use
property
matter
brief
effects
taking
first
english
sever
segment
remainder
fee
simple
estate
ask
whether
segment
taken
entirety
ignore
penn
central
admonition
focus
parcel
whole
justifies
creating
new
categorical
rule
pp
fairness
justice
better
served
categorical
rule
deprivation
economic
use
matter
brief
constitutes
compensable
taking
rule
apply
numerous
normal
delays
obtaining
building
permits
require
changes
practices
long
considered
permissible
exercises
police
power
important
change
law
product
legislative
rulemaking
adjudication
importantly
reasons
set
justice
concurring
opinion
palazzolo
better
approach
temporary
regulatory
taking
claim
requires
careful
examination
weighing
relevant
circumstances
one
length
delay
narrower
rule
excluding
normal
delays
processing
permits
covering
delays
year
less
severe
impact
prevailing
practices
still
impose
serious
constraints
planning
process
moratoria
essential
tool
successful
development
interest
informed
decisionmaking
counsels
adopting
per
se
rule
treat
interim
measures
takings
regardless
planners
good
faith
landowners
reasonable
expectations
moratorium
actual
impact
property
values
financial
constraints
compensating
property
owners
moratorium
may
force
officials
rush
planning
process
abandon
practice
altogether
interest
protecting
decisional
process
even
stronger
agency
developing
regional
plan
considering
permit
single
parcel
trpa
obtained
benefit
comments
criticisms
interested
parties
deliberations
categorical
rule
tied
deliberations
length
likely
create
added
pressure
decisionmakers
quickly
resolve
questions
disadvantaging
landowners
interest
groups
less
organized
familiar
planning
process
moreover
temporary
development
ban
less
risk
individual
landowners
singled
bear
special
burden
shared
public
whole
may
true
moratorium
lasting
one
year
viewed
special
skepticism
district
found
instant
delay
unreasonable
restriction
duration
one
factor
consider
appraising
regulatory
takings
claims
respect
factor
temptation
adopt
per
se
rules
either
direction
must
resisted
pp
affirmed
stevens
delivered
opinion
kennedy
souter
ginsburg
breyer
joined
rehnquist
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
thomas
joined
thomas
filed
dissenting
opinion
scalia
joined
preservation
council
et
petitioners
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
april
justice
stevens
delivered
opinion
question
presented
whether
moratorium
development
imposed
process
devising
comprehensive
plan
constitutes
per
se
taking
property
requiring
compensation
takings
clause
case
actually
involves
two
moratoria
ordered
respondent
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
trpa
maintain
status
quo
studying
impact
development
lake
tahoe
designing
strategy
environmentally
sound
growth
first
ordinance
effective
august
august
whereas
second
restrictive
resolution
effect
august
april
result
two
directives
virtually
development
substantial
portion
property
subject
trpa
jurisdiction
prohibited
period
months
although
question
decide
relates
period
brief
description
events
leading
moratoria
comment
two
permanent
plans
trpa
adopted
thereafter
clarify
narrow
scope
holding
relevant
facts
undisputed
appeals
reversing
district
question
law
accepted
findings
fact
party
challenges
findings
agree
lake
tahoe
uniquely
beautiful
supp
president
clinton
right
call
national
treasure
must
protected
preserved
mark
twain
aptly
described
clarity
waters
merely
transparent
dazzlingly
brilliantly
ibid
emphasis
added
quoting
twain
roughing
lake
tahoe
exceptional
clarity
attributed
absence
algae
obscures
waters
lakes
historically
lack
nitrogen
phosphorous
nourish
growth
algae
ensured
transparency
unfortunately
lake
pristine
state
deteriorated
rapidly
past
years
increased
land
development
lake
tahoe
basin
basin
threatened
noble
sheet
blue
beloved
twain
countless
others
district
found
ramatic
decreases
clarity
first
began
noted
shortly
development
lake
began
earnest
lake
unsurpassed
beauty
seems
wellspring
undoing
upsurge
development
area
caused
increased
nutrient
loading
lake
largely
increase
impervious
coverage
land
basin
resulting
development
ibid
impervious
coverage
asphalt
concrete
buildings
even
packed
dirt
prevents
precipitation
absorbed
soil
instead
water
gathered
concentrated
coverage
larger
amounts
water
flowing
driveway
roof
erosive
force
scattered
raindrops
falling
dispersed
area
especially
one
covered
indigenous
vegetation
softens
impact
raindrops
ibid
given
trend
district
predicted
unless
process
stopped
lake
lose
clarity
trademark
blue
color
becoming
green
opaque
eternity
areas
basin
steeper
slopes
produce
runoff
therefore
usually
considered
high
hazard
lands
moreover
certain
areas
near
streams
wetlands
known
stream
environment
zones
sezs
especially
vulnerable
impact
development
natural
state
act
filters
much
debris
runoff
carries
obvious
response
problem
restrict
development
around
lake
especially
sez
lands
well
areas
already
naturally
prone
runoff
conservation
efforts
focused
controlling
growth
high
hazard
areas
problems
associated
burgeoning
development
began
receive
significant
attention
jurisdiction
basin
occupies
square
miles
shared
california
nevada
five
counties
several
municipalities
forest
service
federal
government
legislatures
two
adopted
tahoe
regional
planning
compact
see
cal
ch
stats
congress
approved
pub
stat
compact
set
goals
protection
preservation
lake
created
trpa
agency
assigned
coordinate
regulate
development
basin
conserve
natural
resources
lake
country
estates
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
pursuant
compact
trpa
adopted
land
use
ordinance
divided
land
basin
seven
land
capability
districts
based
largely
steepness
also
taking
consideration
factors
affecting
runoff
district
assigned
land
coverage
coefficient
recommended
limit
percentage
land
covered
impervious
surface
limits
ranged
districts
districts
land
districts
characterized
high
hazard
sensitive
land
districts
low
hazard
sez
lands
though
often
treated
separate
category
actually
subcategory
district
supp
unfortunately
ordinance
allowed
numerous
exceptions
significantly
limit
construction
new
residential
housing
california
became
dissatisfied
trpa
withdrew
financial
support
unilaterally
imposed
stricter
regulations
part
basin
located
california
eventually
two
approval
congress
president
adopted
extensive
amendment
compact
became
effective
december
pub
stat
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
rev
stat
tahoe
regional
planning
compact
compact
redefined
structure
functions
voting
procedures
trpa
app
stat
supp
directed
develop
regional
environmental
threshold
carrying
capacities
term
embraced
standards
air
quality
water
quality
soil
conservation
vegetation
preservation
noise
stat
compact
provided
trpa
shall
adopt
standards
within
months
ithin
year
adoption
june
shall
adopt
amended
regional
plan
achieves
maintains
carrying
capacities
compact
also
contained
finding
legislatures
california
nevada
order
make
effective
regional
plan
revised
trpa
necessary
halt
temporarily
works
development
region
might
otherwise
absorb
entire
capability
region
development
direct
harmony
ultimate
plan
accordingly
period
prior
adoption
final
plan
may
whichever
earlier
compact
prohibited
development
new
subdivisions
condominiums
apartment
buildings
also
prohibited
city
county
basin
granting
permits
granted
period
trpa
also
working
development
regional
water
quality
plan
comply
clean
water
act
despite
fact
trpa
performed
obligations
good
faith
best
ability
supp
months
concluded
meet
deadlines
compact
june
therefore
enacted
ordinance
imposing
first
two
moratoria
development
petitioners
challenge
proceeding
ordinance
provided
become
effective
august
remain
effect
pending
adoption
permanent
plan
required
compact
app
district
made
detailed
analysis
ordinance
noting
might
even
prohibit
hiking
picnicking
sez
lands
construed
essentially
banning
construction
activity
involved
removal
vegetation
creation
land
coverage
sez
lands
well
class
lands
california
supp
permits
obtained
construction
nevada
certain
findings
made
undisputed
however
ordinance
prohibited
construction
new
residences
sez
lands
either
state
class
lands
california
given
complexity
task
defining
environmental
threshold
carrying
capacities
division
opinion
within
trpa
governing
board
district
found
unsurprising
trpa
failed
adopt
thresholds
august
roughly
two
months
compact
deadline
ibid
liberal
reading
compact
trpa
august
adopt
new
regional
plan
stat
unfortunately
surprisingly
regional
plan
place
date
supp
trpa
therefore
adopted
resolution
completely
suspended
project
reviews
approvals
including
acceptance
new
proposals
remained
effect
new
regional
plan
adopted
april
thus
resolution
imposed
moratorium
prohibiting
construction
high
hazard
lands
either
state
combination
ordinance
resolution
effectively
prohibited
construction
sensitive
lands
california
sez
lands
entire
basin
months
sensitive
lands
nevada
sez
lands
eight
months
two
moratoria
issue
case
day
plan
adopted
state
california
filed
action
seeking
enjoin
implementation
ground
failed
establish
controls
sufficiently
stringent
protect
basin
district
entered
injunction
upheld
appeals
remained
effect
completely
revised
plan
adopted
injunction
plan
contained
provisions
prohibited
new
construction
sensitive
lands
basin
case
comes
us
however
occasion
consider
validity
provisions
ii
approximately
two
months
adoption
plan
petitioners
filed
parallel
actions
trpa
defendants
federal
courts
nevada
california
ultimately
consolidated
trial
district
nevada
petitioners
include
tahoe
sierra
preservation
council
nonprofit
membership
corporation
representing
owners
improved
unimproved
parcels
real
estate
lake
tahoe
basin
class
individual
owners
vacant
lots
located
either
sez
lands
parts
districts
individuals
purchased
properties
prior
effective
date
compact
app
primarily
purpose
constructing
time
choosing
home
serve
permanent
retirement
vacation
residence
made
purchases
understanding
construction
authorized
provided
complied
reasonable
requirements
building
petitioners
complaints
gave
rise
protracted
litigation
produced
four
opinions
appeals
ninth
circuit
several
published
district
present
purposes
however
need
describe
courts
disposition
claim
three
actions
taken
trpa
ordinance
resolution
regional
plan
constituted
takings
petitioners
property
without
indeed
challenge
plan
us
district
appeals
held
federal
injunction
implementing
plan
rather
plan
caused
injuries
petitioners
allegedly
suffered
rulings
encompassed
within
limited
grant
thus
limit
discussion
lower
courts
disposition
claims
based
moratorium
ordinance
ensuing
moratorium
resolution
district
began
constitutional
analysis
identifying
distinction
direct
government
appropriation
property
without
compensation
government
regulation
imposes
severe
restriction
owner
use
property
produces
nearly
result
direct
appropriation
supp
noted
claims
case
regulatory
takings
variety
citing
decision
agins
city
tiburon
stated
regulation
constitute
taking
either
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interest
denies
owner
economically
viable
use
land
supp
district
rejected
first
alternative
based
finding
development
high
hazard
lands
petitioners
lead
significant
additional
damage
lake
respect
second
alternative
first
considered
whether
analysis
adopted
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
lead
conclusion
trpa
effected
partial
taking
whether
actions
effected
total
taking
emphasizing
temporary
nature
regulations
testimony
average
holding
time
lot
tahoe
area
lot
purchase
home
construction
years
failure
petitioners
offer
specific
evidence
harm
district
concluded
consideration
penn
central
factors
clearly
leads
conclusion
taking
supp
absence
evidence
regarding
individual
plaintiffs
evaluated
average
purchasers
intent
found
purchasers
reasonable
expectations
able
build
homes
land
within
period
involved
lawsuit
district
difficulty
total
taking
issue
although
satisfied
petitioners
property
retain
value
found
temporarily
deprived
economically
viable
use
land
concluded
actions
therefore
constituted
categorical
takings
decision
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
rejected
trpa
response
ordinance
resolution
reasonable
temporary
planning
moratoria
excluded
lucas
categorical
approach
thought
fairly
clear
interim
actions
viewed
takings
prior
decisions
lucas
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
oning
boards
cities
counties
agencies
used
time
maintain
status
quo
pending
study
governmental
decision
making
supp
quoting
williams
central
app
expressing
uncertainty
whether
cases
required
holding
moratoria
development
automatically
effect
takings
concluded
trpa
actions
partly
neither
ordinance
resolution
even
though
intended
temporary
beginning
contained
express
termination
date
supp
accordingly
ordered
trpa
pay
damages
petitioners
period
august
april
owning
class
property
nevada
period
august
april
parties
appealed
trpa
successfully
challenged
district
takings
determination
petitioners
unsuccessfully
challenged
dismissal
claims
based
plans
petitioners
however
challenge
district
findings
conclusions
concerning
application
penn
central
respect
two
moratoria
ninth
circuit
noted
petitioners
expressly
disavowed
argument
regulations
constitute
taking
ad
hoc
balancing
approach
described
penn
central
dispute
restrictions
imposed
properties
appropriate
means
securing
purpose
set
forth
compact
accordingly
question
whether
rule
set
forth
lucas
applies
whether
categorical
taking
occurred
ordinance
resolution
denied
plaintiffs
economically
beneficial
productive
use
land
moreover
petitioners
brought
facial
challenge
narrow
inquiry
appeals
whether
mere
enactment
regulations
constituted
taking
contrary
district
appeals
held
regulations
temporary
impact
petitioners
fee
interest
properties
categorical
taking
occurred
reasoned
property
interests
may
many
different
dimensions
example
dimensions
property
interest
may
include
physical
dimension
describes
size
shape
property
question
functional
dimension
describes
extent
owner
may
use
dispose
property
question
temporal
dimension
describes
duration
property
interest
base
plaintiffs
argument
conceptually
sever
plaintiff
fee
interest
discrete
segments
least
one
dimensions
temporal
one
treat
segments
separate
distinct
property
interests
purposes
takings
analysis
theory
argue
categorical
taking
one
temporal
segments
putting
one
side
cases
physical
invasion
occupation
read
cases
involving
regulatory
taking
claims
focus
impact
regulation
parcel
whole
view
planning
regulation
prevents
development
parcel
temporary
period
time
conceptually
different
restriction
permanently
denies
use
discrete
portion
property
permanently
restricts
type
use
across
parcel
situation
regulation
affects
portion
parcel
whether
limited
time
use
space
deprive
owner
economically
beneficial
appeals
distinguished
lucas
applying
relatively
case
regulation
denies
productive
use
entire
parcel
whereas
moratoria
involve
temporal
fee
interest
form
regulation
widespread
well
established
also
rejected
petitioners
argument
decision
first
english
controlling
according
appeals
first
english
concerned
question
whether
compensation
appropriate
remedy
temporary
taking
whether
taking
occurred
faced
squarely
question
whether
taking
occurred
held
penn
central
appropriate
framework
analysis
petitioners
however
failed
challenge
district
conclusion
make
taking
claim
penn
central
factors
dissent
five
judges
ninth
circuit
denied
petition
rehearing
en
banc
dissenters
opinion
panel
holding
faithful
decisions
first
english
lucas
justice
holmes
admonition
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
strong
public
desire
improve
public
condition
enough
warrant
achieving
desire
shorter
cut
constitutional
way
paying
change
importance
case
granted
certiorari
limited
question
stated
beginning
opinion
affirm
iii
petitioners
make
facial
attack
ordinance
resolution
contend
mere
enactment
temporary
regulation
effect
denies
property
owner
viable
economic
use
property
gives
rise
unqualified
constitutional
obligation
compensate
value
use
period
hence
face
uphill
battle
keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
made
especially
steep
desire
categorical
rule
requiring
compensation
whenever
government
imposes
moratorium
development
proposed
rule
need
evaluate
landowners
expectations
actual
impact
regulation
individual
importance
public
interest
served
regulation
reasons
imposing
temporary
restriction
petitioners
enough
regulation
imposes
temporary
deprivation
matter
brief
economically
viable
use
trigger
per
se
rule
taking
occurred
petitioners
assert
opinions
first
english
lucas
already
endorsed
view
logical
application
principle
takings
clause
designed
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
shall
first
explain
cases
support
proposed
categorical
rule
indeed
fairly
read
implicitly
reject
next
shall
explain
armstrong
principle
requires
rejection
rule
well
less
extreme
position
advanced
petitioners
oral
argument
view
answer
abstract
question
whether
temporary
moratorium
effects
taking
neither
yes
always
never
answer
depends
upon
particular
circumstances
resisting
temptation
adopt
amount
per
se
rules
either
direction
palazzolo
rhode
island
concurring
conclude
circumstances
case
best
analyzed
within
penn
central
framework
iv
text
fifth
amendment
provides
basis
drawing
distinction
physical
takings
regulatory
takings
plain
language
requires
payment
compensation
whenever
government
acquires
private
property
public
purpose
whether
acquisition
result
condemnation
proceeding
physical
appropriation
constitution
contains
comparable
reference
regulations
prohibit
property
owner
making
certain
uses
private
jurisprudence
involving
condemnations
physical
takings
old
republic
part
involves
straightforward
application
per
se
rules
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
contrast
recent
vintage
characterized
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
penn
central
designed
allow
careful
examination
weighing
relevant
circumstances
palazzolo
concurring
government
physically
takes
possession
interest
property
public
purpose
categorical
duty
compensate
former
owner
pewee
coal
regardless
whether
interest
taken
constitutes
entire
parcel
merely
part
thereof
thus
compensation
mandated
leasehold
taken
government
occupies
property
purposes
even
though
use
temporary
general
motors
petty
motor
similarly
government
appropriates
part
rooftop
order
provide
cable
tv
access
apartment
tenants
loretto
teleprompter
manhattan
catv
planes
use
private
airspace
approach
government
airport
causby
required
pay
share
matter
small
government
regulation
merely
prohibits
landlords
evicting
tenants
unwilling
pay
higher
rent
block
hirsh
bans
certain
private
uses
portion
owner
property
village
euclid
ambler
realty
keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
forbids
private
use
certain
airspace
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
constitute
categorical
taking
first
category
cases
requires
courts
apply
clear
rule
second
necessarily
entails
complex
factual
assessments
purposes
economic
effects
government
actions
yee
escondido
see
also
loretto
keystone
longstanding
distinction
acquisitions
property
public
use
one
hand
regulations
prohibiting
private
uses
makes
inappropriate
treat
cases
involving
physical
takings
controlling
precedents
evaluation
claim
regulatory
taking
vice
versa
reason
ask
whether
physical
appropriation
advances
substantial
government
interest
whether
deprives
owner
economically
valuable
use
apply
precedent
physical
takings
context
regulatory
takings
claims
regulations
ubiquitous
impact
property
values
tangential
way
often
completely
unanticipated
ways
treating
per
se
takings
transform
government
regulation
luxury
governments
afford
contrast
physical
appropriations
relatively
rare
easily
identified
usually
represent
greater
affront
individual
property
case
present
classi
taking
government
directly
appropriates
private
property
use
eastern
enterprises
apfel
instead
interference
property
rights
arises
public
program
adjusting
benefits
burdens
economic
life
promote
common
good
penn
central
perhaps
recognizing
fundamental
distinction
petitioners
wisely
place
emphasis
analogies
physical
takings
cases
instead
rely
principally
decision
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
regulatory
takings
case
nevertheless
applied
categorical
rule
argue
penn
central
framework
inapplicable
brief
review
cases
led
decision
lucas
however
help
explain
holding
case
answer
question
presented
noted
lucas
justice
holmes
opinion
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
gave
birth
regulatory
takings
subsequent
opinions
repeatedly
consistently
endorsed
holmes
observation
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
justice
holmes
provide
standard
determining
regulation
goes
far
reject
view
expressed
justice
brandeis
dissent
taking
property
remained
possession
owner
appropriated
used
mahon
neither
physical
appropriation
public
use
ever
necessary
component
regulatory
taking
decades
following
decision
generally
eschewed
set
formula
determining
far
far
choosing
instead
engage
essentially
ad
hoc
factual
inquiries
lucas
quoting
penn
central
indeed
still
resist
temptation
adopt
per
se
rules
cases
involving
partial
regulatory
takings
preferring
examine
number
factors
rather
simple
mathematically
precise
justice
brennan
opinion
penn
central
however
make
clear
even
though
multiple
factors
relevant
analysis
regulatory
takings
claims
cases
must
focus
parcel
whole
taking
jurisprudence
divide
single
parcel
discrete
segments
attempt
determine
whether
rights
particular
segment
entirely
abrogated
deciding
whether
particular
governmental
action
effected
taking
focuses
rather
character
action
nature
extent
interference
rights
parcel
whole
city
tax
block
designated
landmark
site
requirement
aggregate
must
viewed
entirety
explains
example
regulation
prohibited
commercial
transactions
eagle
feathers
bar
uses
impose
physical
invasion
restraint
upon
taking
andrus
allard
also
clarifies
restrictions
use
limited
portions
parcel
ordinances
gorieb
fox
requirement
coal
pillars
left
place
prevent
mine
subsidence
keystone
bituminous
coal
assn
debenedictis
considered
regulatory
takings
cases
affirmed
owner
possesses
full
bundle
property
rights
destruction
one
strand
bundle
taking
andrus
foregoing
cases
considered
whether
particular
regulations
gone
far
therefore
invalid
none
addressed
separate
remedial
question
compensation
measured
regulatory
taking
established
dissenting
opinion
san
diego
gas
elec
san
diego
justice
brennan
identified
question
explained
answer
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
justice
brennan
proposed
rule
subsequently
endorsed
first
english
first
english
certainly
significant
decision
nothing
say
today
qualifies
holding
nonetheless
important
recognize
address
case
quite
different
logically
prior
question
whether
temporary
regulation
issue
fact
constituted
taking
first
english
unambiguously
repeatedly
characterized
issue
decided
compensation
question
remedial
question
disposition
case
grounds
isolates
remedial
question
consideration
see
also
statement
holding
equally
unambiguous
merely
hold
government
activities
already
worked
taking
use
property
subsequent
action
government
relieve
duty
provide
compensation
period
taking
effective
emphasis
added
fact
first
english
expressly
disavowed
ruling
merits
takings
issue
california
courts
decided
remedial
question
assumption
taking
alleged
reject
appellee
suggestion
must
independently
evaluate
adequacy
complaint
resolve
takings
claim
merits
reach
remedial
question
remand
california
courts
concluded
taking
first
english
evangelical
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
cal
app
cal
rptr
declined
review
decision
extent
first
english
referenced
antecedent
takings
question
identified
two
reasons
regulation
temporarily
denying
owner
use
property
might
constitute
taking
first
recognized
county
might
avoid
conclusion
compensable
taking
occurred
establishing
denial
use
insulated
part
state
authority
enact
safety
regulations
second
limited
holding
facts
presented
recognized
quite
different
questions
arise
case
normal
delays
obtaining
building
permits
changes
zoning
ordinances
variances
like
us
thus
decision
first
english
surely
approve
implicitly
rejected
categorical
submission
petitioners
advocating
similarly
decision
lucas
dispositive
question
presented
although
lucas
endorsed
applied
categorical
rule
one
petitioners
propose
lucas
purchased
two
residential
lots
lots
rendered
valueless
statute
enacted
two
years
later
trial
found
taking
occurred
ordered
compensation
representing
value
fee
simple
estate
plus
interest
statute
read
time
trial
effected
taking
unconditional
permanent
state
appeal
pending
statute
amended
authorize
exceptions
might
allowed
lucas
obtain
building
permit
despite
fact
amendment
gave
state
opportunity
dispose
appeal
ripeness
grounds
resolved
merits
permanent
takings
claim
reversed
since
lucas
reason
proceed
temporary
taking
theory
trial
decided
case
permanent
taking
theory
trial
state
addressed
ibid
categorical
rule
applied
lucas
compensation
required
regulation
deprives
owner
economically
beneficial
uses
land
rule
statute
wholly
eliminated
value
lucas
fee
simple
title
clearly
qualified
taking
holding
limited
extraordinary
circumstance
productive
economically
beneficial
use
land
permitted
emphasis
word
text
opinion
effect
reiterated
explaining
categorical
rule
apply
diminution
value
instead
anything
less
complete
elimination
value
total
loss
acknowledged
require
kind
analysis
applied
penn
central
lucas
certainly
holding
permanent
obliteration
value
fee
simple
estate
constitutes
categorical
taking
answer
question
whether
regulation
prohibiting
economic
use
land
period
legal
effect
petitioners
seek
bring
case
rule
announced
lucas
arguing
effectively
sever
segment
remainder
landowner
fee
simple
estate
ask
whether
segment
taken
entirety
moratoria
course
defining
property
interest
taken
terms
regulation
challenged
circular
property
divided
every
delay
become
total
ban
moratorium
normal
permit
process
alike
constitute
categorical
takings
petitioners
conceptual
severance
argument
unavailing
ignores
penn
central
admonition
regulatory
takings
cases
must
focus
parcel
whole
extent
portion
property
taken
portion
always
taken
entirety
relevant
question
however
whether
property
taken
portion
parcel
question
thus
district
erred
disaggregated
petitioners
property
temporal
segments
corresponding
regulations
issue
analyzed
whether
petitioners
deprived
economically
viable
use
period
supp
starting
point
analysis
ask
whether
total
taking
entire
parcel
penn
central
proper
interest
real
property
defined
metes
bounds
describe
geographic
dimensions
term
years
describes
temporal
aspect
owner
interest
see
restatement
property
dimensions
must
considered
interest
viewed
entirety
hence
permanent
deprivation
owner
use
entire
area
taking
parcel
whole
whereas
temporary
restriction
merely
causes
diminution
value
logically
fee
simple
estate
rendered
valueless
temporary
prohibition
economic
use
property
recover
value
soon
prohibition
lifted
cf
agins
city
tiburon
neither
lucas
first
english
regulatory
takings
cases
compels
us
accept
petitioners
categorical
submission
fact
cases
make
clear
categorical
rule
lucas
carved
extraordinary
case
regulation
permanently
deprives
property
value
default
rule
remains
regulatory
taking
context
require
fact
specific
inquiry
nevertheless
consider
whether
interest
protecting
individual
property
owners
bearing
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
armstrong
justifies
creating
new
rule
considerations
fairness
justice
arguably
support
conclusion
trpa
moratoria
takings
petitioners
property
based
seven
different
theories
first
even
though
previously
done
might
announce
categorical
rule
interest
fairness
justice
compensation
required
whenever
government
temporarily
deprives
owner
economically
viable
use
property
second
craft
narrower
rule
cover
temporary
restrictions
except
normal
delays
obtaining
building
permits
changes
zoning
ordinances
variances
like
put
one
side
opinion
first
english
sixth
apart
district
finding
trpa
actions
represented
proportional
response
serious
risk
harm
lake
petitioners
might
argued
moratoria
substantially
advance
legitimate
state
interest
see
agins
monterey
finally
petitioners
challenged
application
moratoria
individual
parcels
instead
making
facial
challenge
might
prevailed
penn
central
analysis
case
comes
us
however
none
last
four
theories
available
rolling
moratoria
theory
presented
petition
certiorari
order
granting
review
encompass
issue
case
tried
district
reviewed
appeals
theory
two
moratoria
separate
taking
one
period
period
already
noted
recovery
either
bad
faith
theory
theory
state
interests
insubstantial
foreclosed
district
unchallenged
findings
fact
recovery
penn
central
analysis
also
foreclosed
petitioners
expressly
disavowed
theory
appeal
district
conclusion
evidence
support
nonetheless
three
per
se
theories
fairly
encompassed
within
question
decided
answer
respect
theories
ultimate
constitutional
question
whether
concepts
fairness
justice
underlie
takings
clause
better
served
one
categorical
rules
penn
central
inquiry
relevant
circumstances
particular
cases
perspective
extreme
categorical
rule
deprivation
economic
use
matter
brief
constitutes
compensable
taking
surely
sustained
petitioners
broad
submission
apply
numerous
normal
delays
obtaining
building
permits
changes
zoning
ordinances
variances
like
well
orders
temporarily
prohibiting
access
crime
scenes
businesses
violate
health
codes
buildings
areas
foresee
rule
undoubtedly
require
changes
numerous
practices
long
considered
permissible
exercises
police
power
justice
holmes
warned
mahon
overnment
hardly
go
extent
values
incident
property
diminished
without
paying
every
change
general
law
rule
required
compensation
every
delay
use
property
render
routine
government
processes
prohibitively
expensive
encourage
hasty
making
important
change
law
product
legislative
rulemaking
rather
importantly
reasons
set
length
justice
concurring
opinion
palazzolo
rhode
island
persuaded
better
approach
claims
regulation
effected
temporary
taking
requires
careful
examination
weighing
relevant
circumstances
opinion
justice
specifically
considered
role
temporal
relationship
regulatory
enactment
title
acquisition
play
analysis
takings
claim
occasion
address
particular
issue
case
involves
different
temporal
relationship
distinction
temporary
restriction
one
permanent
comments
fairness
justice
inquiry
nevertheless
instructive
today
holding
mean
timing
regulation
enactment
relative
acquisition
title
immaterial
penn
central
analysis
indeed
much
error
expunge
consideration
takings
inquiry
accord
exclusive
significance
polestar
instead
remains
principles
set
forth
penn
central
cases
govern
partial
regulatory
takings
cases
interference
expectations
one
number
factors
must
examine
fifth
amendment
forbids
taking
private
property
public
use
without
compensation
recognized
constitutional
guarantee
designed
bar
government
forcing
people
alone
bear
public
burdens
fairness
justice
borne
public
whole
penn
central
quoting
armstrong
concepts
fairness
justice
underlie
takings
clause
course
less
fully
determinate
accordingly
eschewed
set
formula
determining
justice
fairness
require
economic
injuries
caused
public
action
compensated
government
rather
remain
disproportionately
concentrated
persons
penn
central
supra
quoting
goldblatt
hempstead
outcome
instead
depends
largely
upon
particular
circumstances
case
penn
central
supra
quoting
central
eureka
mining
rejecting
petitioners
per
se
rule
hold
temporary
nature
restriction
precludes
finding
effects
taking
simply
recognize
given
exclusive
significance
one
way
narrower
rule
excluded
normal
delays
associated
processing
permits
covered
delays
year
certainly
less
severe
impact
prevailing
practices
still
impose
serious
financial
constraints
planning
unlike
extraordinary
circumstance
government
deprives
property
owner
economic
use
lucas
moratoria
like
ordinance
resolution
used
widely
among
planners
preserve
status
quo
formulating
permanent
development
fact
consensus
planning
community
appears
moratoria
interim
development
controls
often
called
essential
tool
successful
yet
even
weak
version
petitioners
categorical
rule
treat
interim
measures
takings
regardless
good
faith
planners
reasonable
expectations
landowners
actual
impact
moratorium
property
interest
facilitating
informed
decisionmaking
regulatory
agencies
counsels
adopting
per
se
rule
impose
severe
costs
deliberations
otherwise
financial
constraints
compensating
property
owners
moratorium
may
force
officials
rush
planning
process
abandon
practice
altogether
extent
communities
forced
abandon
using
moratoria
landowners
incentives
develop
property
quickly
comprehensive
plan
enacted
thereby
fostering
inefficient
growth
finding
compact
presumably
endorsed
three
legislative
bodies
participated
enactment
attests
importance
concern
stat
legislatures
california
nevada
find
order
make
effective
regional
plan
revised
agency
necessary
halt
temporarily
works
development
region
might
otherwise
absorb
entire
capability
region
development
direct
harmony
ultimate
plan
justice
kennedy
explained
opinion
palazzolo
interest
informed
decisionmaking
underlies
decisions
imposing
strict
ripeness
requirement
landowners
asserting
regulatory
takings
claims
cases
stand
important
principle
landowner
may
establish
taking
authority
opportunity
using
reasonable
procedures
decide
explain
reach
challenged
regulation
ripeness
rules
takings
claim
based
law
regulation
alleged
go
far
burdening
property
depends
upon
landowner
first
followed
reasonable
necessary
steps
allow
regulatory
agencies
exercise
full
discretion
considering
development
plans
property
including
opportunity
grant
variances
waivers
allowed
law
general
rule
ordinary
processes
followed
extent
restriction
property
known
regulatory
taking
yet
established
see
suitum
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
noting
difficulty
demonstrating
mere
enactment
regulations
restricting
land
use
effects
taking
create
perverse
system
incentives
hold
landowners
must
wait
taking
claim
ripen
planners
make
decisions
time
holding
planners
must
compensate
landowners
delay
indeed
interest
protecting
decisional
process
even
stronger
agency
developing
regional
plan
considering
permit
single
parcel
proceedings
involving
lake
tahoe
basin
example
moratoria
enabled
trpa
obtain
benefit
comments
criticisms
interested
parties
petitioners
since
categorical
rule
tied
length
deliberations
likely
create
added
pressure
decisionmakers
reach
quick
resolution
questions
serve
disadvantage
landowners
interest
groups
organized
familiar
planning
process
moreover
temporary
ban
development
lesser
risk
individual
landowners
singled
bear
special
burden
shared
public
whole
nollan
california
coastal
least
moratorium
clear
reciprocity
advantage
mahon
protects
interests
affected
landowners
immediate
construction
might
inconsistent
provisions
plan
ultimately
adopted
us
burdened
somewhat
restrictions
turn
benefit
greatly
restrictions
placed
others
keystone
fact
reason
believe
property
values
often
continue
increase
despite
moratorium
see
growth
properties
klingbeil
holding
supp
md
noting
land
values
expected
increase
moratorium
development
cf
forest
properties
ca
fed
record
showed
market
value
entire
parcel
increased
despite
denial
permit
fill
develop
property
increase
makes
sense
context
property
values
throughout
basin
expected
reflect
added
assurance
lake
tahoe
remain
pristine
state
since
cases
moratorium
may
impose
burden
adopt
rule
assumes
moratoria
always
force
individuals
bear
special
burden
shared
public
whole
may
well
true
moratorium
lasts
one
year
viewed
special
skepticism
given
fact
district
found
months
required
trpa
formulate
regional
plan
unreasonable
possibly
conclude
every
delay
one
year
constitutionally
formulating
general
rule
kind
suitable
task
state
view
duration
restriction
one
important
factors
must
consider
appraisal
regulatory
takings
claim
respect
factor
respect
factors
temptation
adopt
amount
per
se
rules
either
direction
must
resisted
palazzolo
concurring
may
moratoria
last
longer
one
year
interfere
reasonable
expectations
district
opinion
illustrates
petitioners
proposed
rule
simply
blunt
instrument
identifying
cases
conclude
therefore
interest
fairness
justice
best
served
relying
familiar
penn
central
approach
deciding
cases
like
rather
attempting
craft
new
categorical
rule
accordingly
judgment
appeals
affirmed
ordered
preservation
council
et
petitioners
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
april
chief
justice
rehnquist
justice
scalia
justice
thomas
join
dissenting
half
decade
petitioners
prohibited
building
homes
structures
land
takings
clause
requires
government
pay
compensation
deprives
owners
economically
viable
use
land
see
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
ban
development
lasting
almost
six
years
resemble
traditional
planning
device
dissent
determine
whether
regulation
gone
far
unless
knows
far
regulation
goes
macdonald
sommer
frates
yolo
county
citing
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
failing
undertake
inquiry
ignores
much
impact
respondent
conduct
petitioners
instead
relies
flawed
determination
appeals
relevant
time
period
lasted
august
april
ante
period
ordinance
regulation
prohibited
development
pending
adoption
new
regional
plan
adoption
regional
plan
hereinafter
plan
plan
however
change
anything
petitioners
standpoint
adoption
plan
petitioners
still
make
use
land
appeals
disregarded
deprivation
ground
respondent
cause
action
plaintiff
must
demonstrate
defendant
conduct
actionable
cause
claimed
injury
applying
principle
appeals
held
regional
plan
amount
taking
plan
actually
allowed
permits
issue
construction
residences
permits
never
issued
district
immediately
issued
temporary
restraining
order
later
permanent
injunction
lasted
prohibiting
approval
building
projects
plan
thus
appeals
concluded
plan
constituted
taking
injunction
plan
prohibited
development
period
appeals
correct
plan
cause
petitioners
injury
right
answer
wrong
question
causation
question
limited
whether
plan
caused
petitioners
injury
question
whether
respondent
caused
petitioners
injury
never
addressed
causation
requirement
context
regulatory
takings
claim
though
language
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
suggests
ordinary
principles
proximate
cause
govern
causation
inquiry
takings
claims
causation
standard
require
much
elaboration
case
respondent
undoubtedly
moving
force
behind
petitioners
inability
build
land
august
monell
new
york
city
dept
social
causation
established
government
action
moving
force
behind
alleged
constitutional
violation
injunction
case
issued
plan
comply
tahoe
regional
planning
compact
compact
regulations
issued
pursuant
compact
course
respondent
responsible
compact
regulations
august
respondent
adopted
resolution
resolution
established
environmental
thresholds
water
quality
soil
conservation
air
quality
vegetation
preservation
wildlife
fisheries
noise
recreation
scenic
resources
california
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
district
enjoined
plan
part
plan
allowed
metric
tons
soil
per
year
erode
residences
excess
resolution
threshold
soil
conservation
see
also
another
reason
district
enjoined
plan
comply
article
compact
requires
finding
respect
project
project
cause
established
environmental
thresholds
exceeded
thus
district
enjoined
plan
plan
comply
environmental
requirements
respondent
regulations
compact
respondent
surely
responsible
regulations
also
responsible
compact
governmental
agency
charged
administering
compact
compact
art
stat
follows
respondent
moving
force
behind
petitioners
inability
develop
land
april
enactment
plan
without
environmental
thresholds
established
compact
resolution
plan
gone
effect
petitioners
able
build
residences
certainly
foreseeable
development
projects
exceeding
environmental
thresholds
prohibited
indeed
purpose
enacting
thresholds
respondent
caused
petitioners
inability
use
land
appropriate
period
time
consider
takings
claim
ii
turn
determining
whether
ban
economic
development
lasting
almost
six
years
taking
lucas
reaffirmed
frequently
expressed
view
owner
real
property
called
upon
sacrifice
economically
beneficial
uses
name
common
good
leave
property
economically
idle
suffered
taking
district
case
held
ordinances
resolutions
effect
august
april
fact
deny
plaintiffs
economically
viable
use
land
supp
appeals
overturn
finding
injunction
issued
environmental
thresholds
issued
respondent
permit
development
residences
forced
petitioners
leave
land
economically
idle
least
another
three
years
dispute
petitioners
forced
leave
land
economically
idle
period
see
ante
refuses
apply
lucas
ground
deprivation
temporary
neither
takings
clause
case
law
supports
distinction
one
thing
distinction
temporary
permanent
prohibitions
tenuous
temporary
prohibition
case
finds
taking
lasted
almost
six
permanent
prohibition
held
taking
lucas
lasted
less
two
years
see
decision
today
takings
question
turns
entirely
initial
label
given
regulation
label
often
without
much
meaning
every
incentive
government
simply
label
prohibition
development
temporary
fix
set
number
years
case
initial
designation
preclude
government
repeatedly
extending
temporary
prohibition
ban
development
holds
designation
government
conclusive
even
though
fact
moratorium
greatly
exceeds
time
initially
specified
apparently
view
even
moratorium
taking
lucas
moratorium
permanent
opinion
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
rejects
distinction
temporary
permanent
takings
landowner
deprived
economically
beneficial
use
land
first
english
stated
temporary
takings
deny
landowner
use
property
different
kind
permanent
takings
constitution
clearly
requires
compensation
first
english
rule
temporary
deprivations
use
compensable
takings
clause
lucas
found
nothing
problematic
later
developments
potentially
made
ban
development
temporary
citing
first
english
supra
see
also
kennedy
concurring
well
established
temporary
takings
protected
constitution
permanent
ones
citing
first
english
supra
fundamentally
even
practical
distinction
temporary
permanent
deprivations
plausible
treat
two
differently
terms
takings
law
odds
justification
lucas
rule
lucas
rule
derived
fact
total
deprivation
use
landowner
point
view
equivalent
physical
appropriation
regulation
lucas
practical
equivalence
physical
appropriation
condemnation
fifth
amendment
required
compensation
practical
equivalence
landowner
point
view
temporary
ban
economic
use
forced
leasehold
example
assume
following
situation
respondent
contemplating
creation
national
park
around
lake
tahoe
preserve
scenic
beauty
respondent
decides
take
leasehold
petitioners
property
human
activity
land
prohibited
order
prevent
destruction
area
deciding
whether
request
area
designated
national
park
surely
leasehold
require
compensation
series
world
war
cases
government
condemned
leasehold
interests
order
support
war
effort
government
conceded
required
pay
compensation
leasehold
see
petty
motor
general
motors
petitioners
standpoint
happened
case
different
government
taken
lease
property
ignores
practical
equivalence
respondent
deprivation
deprivation
resulting
leasehold
allows
government
regulation
eminent
domain
take
private
property
without
paying
kozinski
dissenting
denial
rehearing
en
banc
instead
acknowledging
practical
equivalence
case
condemned
leasehold
analogizes
areas
takings
law
distinguished
regulations
physical
appropriations
see
ante
whatever
basis
distinctions
contexts
apply
regulation
deprives
landowner
economically
beneficial
use
land
addition
practical
equivalence
landowner
perspective
regulation
physical
appropriation
held
regulation
denying
productive
use
land
implicate
traditional
justification
differentiating
regulations
physical
appropriations
extraordinary
circumstance
productive
economically
beneficial
use
land
permitted
less
likely
legislature
simply
adjusting
benefits
burdens
economic
life
manner
secures
average
reciprocity
advantage
everyone
concerned
lucas
supra
quoting
penn
central
transp
new
york
city
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
likely
property
pressed
form
public
service
guise
mitigating
serious
public
harm
lucas
supra
also
reads
lucas
fundamentally
concerned
value
ante
rather
denial
economically
beneficial
productive
use
land
lucas
repeatedly
discusses
holding
applying
productive
economically
beneficial
use
land
permitted
see
also
ibid
otal
deprivation
beneficial
use
landowner
point
view
equivalent
physical
appropriation
fifth
amendment
violated
regulation
denies
owner
economically
viable
use
land
functional
basis
permitting
government
regulation
affect
property
values
without
compensation
apply
relatively
rare
situations
government
deprived
landowner
economically
beneficial
uses
ibid
fact
regulations
leave
owner
land
without
economically
beneficial
productive
options
use
carry
heightened
risk
private
property
pressed
form
public
service
hen
owner
real
property
called
upon
sacrifice
economically
beneficial
uses
name
common
good
leave
property
economically
idle
suffered
taking
moreover
position
value
sine
qua
non
lucas
rule
proves
much
surely
land
issue
lucas
retained
market
value
based
contingency
soon
came
fruition
see
supra
development
ban
amended
lucas
implicated
government
deprives
landowner
economically
beneficial
productive
use
land
district
found
agrees
moratorium
temporarily
deprived
petitioners
economically
viable
use
land
ante
rationale
lucas
rule
applies
strongly
case
temporary
denial
viable
use
land
six
years
taking
iii
worries
applying
lucas
compels
finding
array
traditional
planning
devices
takings
ante
since
beginning
regulatory
takings
jurisprudence
recognized
property
rights
enjoyed
implied
limitation
mahon
supra
thus
lucas
holding
regulation
prohibiting
economically
beneficial
use
coastal
land
came
within
categorical
takings
rule
nonetheless
inquired
whether
result
inhere
title
restrictions
background
principles
state
law
property
nuisance
already
place
upon
land
ownership
regulation
issue
lucas
purported
permanent
least
long
term
concluded
implied
limitation
state
property
law
achieve
similar
deprivation
economic
use
something
achieved
courts
adjacent
landowners
uniquely
affected
persons
state
law
private
nuisance
state
complementary
power
abate
nuisances
affect
public
generally
otherwise
ibid
regulation
merely
delays
final
land
use
decision
recognized
background
principles
state
property
law
prevent
delay
deemed
taking
thus
noted
first
english
discussion
temporary
takings
apply
case
normal
delays
obtaining
building
permits
changes
zoning
ordinances
variances
like
zoning
regulations
existed
far
back
colonial
boston
see
treanor
original
understanding
takings
clause
political
process
colum
rev
new
york
city
enacted
first
comprehensive
zoning
ordinance
see
anderson
american
law
zoning
young
rev
ed
thus
delays
attendant
zoning
permit
regimes
longstanding
feature
state
property
law
part
landowner
reasonable
expectations
see
lucas
supra
kennedy
concurring
judgment
moratorium
prohibiting
economic
use
period
six
years
one
longstanding
implied
limitations
state
property
moratoria
interim
controls
use
land
seek
maintain
status
quo
respect
land
development
area
either
freezing
existing
land
uses
allowing
issuance
building
permits
certain
land
uses
inconsistent
contemplated
zoning
plan
zoning
change
ziegler
rathkopf
law
zoning
planning
ed
typical
moratoria
thus
prohibit
certain
categories
development
restaurants
see
schafer
new
orleans
adult
businesses
see
renton
playtime
theatres
commercial
development
see
arnold
bernhard
planning
zoning
moratoria
implicate
lucas
deprive
landowners
economically
beneficial
use
land
moratoria
prohibit
development
lineage
permit
zoning
requirements
thus
less
certain
property
acquired
implied
limitation
moratorium
prohibiting
development
moreover
unlike
permit
system
expected
project
approved
long
certain
conditions
satisfied
moratorium
prohibits
uses
definition
contemplating
new
plan
prohibit
uses
case
require
us
decide
categorical
matter
whether
moratoria
prohibiting
economic
use
implied
limitation
state
property
law
duration
moratorium
far
exceeds
ordinary
moratoria
recognizes
ante
state
statutes
authorizing
issuance
moratoria
often
limit
moratoria
duration
california
much
land
issue
case
located
provides
moratorium
shall
force
effect
days
date
adoption
caps
extension
moratorium
total
duration
exceed
two
years
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
see
also
stat
subd
limiting
moratoria
months
one
permissible
extension
total
two
years
another
state
limits
moratoria
days
possibility
single
extension
rev
stat
ann
others
limit
moratoria
six
months
without
possibility
extension
see
rev
stat
stat
ann
indeed
long
understood
moratoria
development
exceeding
short
time
periods
legitimate
planning
device
see
holdsworth
hague
misc
resolution
reflected
understanding
limited
duration
moratoria
initially
limiting
moratorium
case
days
resulted
moratorium
lasting
nearly
six
years
bears
resemblance
nature
traditional
moratoria
understood
background
examples
state
property
law
prohibition
development
nearly
six
years
case
said
resemble
implied
limitation
state
property
law
taking
requires
compensation
lake
tahoe
national
treasure
doubt
respondent
efforts
preventing
degradation
lake
made
good
faith
furtherance
public
interest
case
governmental
action
furthers
public
interest
constitution
requires
costs
burdens
borne
public
large
targeted
citizens
justice
holmes
admonition
years
ago
rings
true
danger
forgetting
strong
public
desire
improve
public
condition
enough
warrant
achieving
desire
shorter
cut
constitutional
way
paying
change
mahon
preservation
council
et
petitioners
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
et
al
writ
certiorari
appeals
ninth
circuit
april
justice
thomas
justice
scalia
joins
dissenting
join
chief
justice
dissent
write
separately
address
majority
conclusion
temporary
moratorium
issue
taking
taking
parcel
whole
ante
questionable
applied
various
alleged
regulatory
takings
view
rejected
context
temporal
deprivations
property
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
held
temporary
permanent
takings
different
kind
landowner
deprived
beneficial
use
land
thought
first
english
put
rest
notion
relevant
denominator
land
infinite
life
consequently
regulation
effecting
total
deprivation
use
temporal
slice
property
compensable
takings
clause
unless
background
principles
state
property
law
prevent
deemed
taking
total
deprivation
use
landowner
point
view
equivalent
physical
appropriation
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
taking
exactly
occurred
case
one
seriously
doubts
land
use
regulations
issue
rendered
petitioners
land
unsusceptible
economically
beneficial
use
true
inception
moratorium
remains
true
today
individuals
families
deprived
opportunity
build
homes
permanent
retirement
vacation
residences
land
upon
construction
authorized
purchased
assures
temporary
prohibition
economic
use
taking
logically
property
recover
value
soon
prohibition
lifted
ante
logical
assurance
temporary
restriction
merely
causes
diminution
value
ante
cold
comfort
property
owners
case
long
run
dead
john
maynard
keynes
monetary
reform
hold
regulations
prohibiting
productive
uses
property
subject
lucas
per
se
rule
regardless
whether
property
burdened
retains
theoretical
useful
life
value
temporary
moratorium
lifted
mind
potential
future
value
bears
amount
compensation
due
nothing
question
whether
taking
first
place
regrettable
charted
markedly
different
path
today
footnotes
often
referred
compensation
clause
final
clause
fifth
amendment
provides
shall
private
property
taken
public
use
without
compensation
applies
well
federal
government
chicago
chicago
webb
fabulous
pharmacies
beckwith
according
senate
report
two
sizable
lakes
world
comparable
quality
crater
lake
oregon
protected
part
crater
lake
national
park
lake
baikal
former
soviet
union
lake
tahoe
however
readily
accessible
large
metropolitan
centers
adaptable
urban
development
pp
district
added
least
long
time
estimates
lake
turn
green
take
years
return
natural
state
ever
possible
supp
app
moratorium
apply
rights
vested
effective
date
compact
two
months
compact
became
effective
trpa
adopted
ordinance
broadly
defining
term
project
include
construction
new
residence
requiring
owners
land
districts
get
permit
trpa
beginning
construction
homes
property
supp
explained
supra
petitioners
purchased
land
compact
amidst
heavily
regulated
zoning
scheme
property
already
classified
part
land
capability
districts
sez
land
land
classification
subject
regulations
degree
artificial
disturbance
land
safely
sustain
supp
supp
supp
petitioners
amended
complaint
allege
adoption
plan
also
constituted
unconstitutional
taking
ultimately
district
appeals
held
claim
barred
california
statute
limitations
nevada
statute
limitations
see
although
validity
plan
us
note
litigants
challenged
certain
applications
plan
see
suitum
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
dissent
chief
justice
contends
plan
us
compact
proximate
cause
petitioners
injuries
post
petitioners
however
challenge
appeals
holding
causation
briefs
merits
presumably
understood
granted
certiorari
question
hether
appeals
properly
determined
temporary
moratorium
land
development
constitute
taking
property
requiring
compensation
takings
clause
constitution
interested
narrow
question
decided
today
throughout
district
appeals
decisions
phrase
temporary
moratorium
refers
two
things
two
things
ordinance
resolution
dissent
novel
theory
causation
briefed
discussed
oral
argument
district
explained
direct
connection
potential
development
plaintiffs
lands
harm
lake
suffer
result
thereof
suggestion
plaintiffs
less
severe
response
adequately
addressed
problems
lake
facing
thus
difficult
see
proportional
response
adopted
given
trpa
actions
application
aimed
individual
landowner
plaintiffs
appear
bear
burden
proof
point
met
burden
really
attempted
although
unwilling
stipulate
fact
trpa
actions
substantially
advanced
legitimate
state
interest
plaintiffs
seriously
contest
matter
trial
citation
omitted
penn
central
analysis
involves
complex
factors
including
regulation
economic
effect
landowner
extent
regulation
interferes
reasonable
expectations
character
government
action
palazzolo
rhode
island
supp
stated
petitioners
plenty
time
build
restrictions
went
effect
almost
everyone
tahoe
basin
knew
late
crackdown
development
works
addition
found
fact
evidence
introduced
regarding
specific
diminution
value
plaintiffs
individual
properties
clearly
weighs
finding
partial
taking
plaintiffs
property
ibid
pretrial
order
describes
purchases
forest
service
private
lots
environmentally
sensitive
areas
periods
two
moratoria
effect
period
ending
august
purchased
parcels
california
average
price
parcels
nevada
average
price
ensuing
period
purchased
california
parcels
average
price
nevada
parcels
average
price
app
moreover
periods
owners
sold
sewer
building
allocations
owners
higher
capability
lots
ordinance
specified
terminate
regional
plan
became
finalized
resolution
limited
days
renewed
additional
term
nevertheless
district
distinguished
measures
true
temporary
moratoria
fixed
date
terminate
supp
district
ruled
regulations
constitute
taking
penn
central
ad
hoc
approach
constitute
categorical
taking
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
see
preservation
council
supp
defendants
appealed
district
latter
holding
plaintiffs
appeal
former
even
arguments
regarding
penn
central
test
fairly
encompassed
defendants
appeal
plaintiffs
stated
explicitly
appeal
argue
regulations
constitute
taking
ad
hoc
balancing
approach
described
penn
central
ibid
appeals
added
three
types
regulation
impact
parcel
value
affect
aspect
owner
use
property
restricting
use
may
occur
use
may
occur
use
may
occur
prior
agins
city
tiburon
already
rejected
takings
challenges
regulations
eliminating
use
portion
property
regulations
restricting
type
use
across
breadth
property
see
penn
central
diminution
value
caused
zoning
law
see
also
william
haas
city
county
san
francisco
cir
value
reduced
cases
uniformly
reject
ed
proposition
diminution
property
value
standing
alone
establish
taking
penn
central
plausible
basis
distinguish
similar
diminution
value
results
temporary
suspension
development
despite
clear
refusal
hold
moratorium
never
effects
taking
chief
justice
accuses
us
allow
ing
government
take
private
property
without
paying
post
may
true
penn
central
analysis
petitioners
land
taken
compensation
due
petitioners
failed
challenge
district
conclusion
taking
penn
central
supra
determining
whether
government
action
affecting
property
unconstitutional
deprivation
ownership
rights
compensation
clause
must
interpret
word
taken
government
condemns
physically
appropriates
property
fact
taking
typically
obvious
undisputed
however
owner
contends
taking
occurred
law
regulation
imposes
restrictions
severe
tantamount
condemnation
appropriation
predicate
taking
analysis
complex
illustrate
importance
distinction
loretto
actual
taking
possession
control
coal
mine
central
eureka
mining
contrast
found
taking
government
issued
wartime
order
requiring
nonessential
gold
mines
cease
operations
loretto
relied
distinction
dismissing
argument
discussion
physical
taking
issue
case
affect
laws
long
regulations
require
landlord
suffer
physical
occupation
portion
building
third
party
analyzed
multifactor
inquiry
generally
applicable
nonpossessory
governmental
activity
citing
penn
central
according
chief
justice
dissent
even
temporary
regulation
governed
physical
takings
cases
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
landowner
point
view
moratorium
functional
equivalent
forced
leasehold
post
course
landowner
government
standpoint
critical
differences
leasehold
moratorium
condemnation
leasehold
gives
government
possession
property
right
admit
exclude
others
right
use
public
purpose
regulatory
taking
contrast
give
government
right
use
property
dispossess
owner
affect
right
exclude
others
chief
justice
stretches
lucas
equivalence
language
far
even
regulation
constitutes
minor
infringement
property
may
landowner
perspective
functional
equivalent
appropriation
lucas
carved
narrow
exception
rules
governing
regulatory
takings
extraordinary
circumstance
permanent
deprivation
beneficial
use
exception
partially
justified
based
equivalence
theory
cited
dissent
also
justified
theory
relatively
rare
situations
government
deprived
landowner
economically
beneficial
uses
less
realistic
assume
regulation
secure
average
reciprocity
advantage
government
go
required
pay
every
restriction
explain
infra
assumptions
hold
true
context
moratorium
case
involved
bill
equity
brought
defendants
error
prevent
pennsylvania
coal
company
mining
property
way
remove
supports
cause
subsidence
surface
house
mahon
mahon
sought
prevent
pennsylvania
coal
mining
property
relying
state
statute
prohibited
ing
undermine
foundation
home
company
challenged
statute
taking
interest
coal
without
compensation
lucas
explained
prior
justice
holmes
exposition
pennsylvania
coal
mahon
generally
thought
takings
clause
reached
direct
appropriation
property
legal
tender
cases
wall
functional
equivalent
practical
ouster
owner
possession
transportation
chicago
justice
holmes
recognized
mahon
however
protection
physical
appropriations
private
property
meaningfully
enforced
government
power
redefine
range
interests
included
ownership
property
necessarily
constrained
constitutional
limits
instead
uses
private
property
subject
unbridled
uncompensated
qualification
police
power
natural
tendency
human
nature
extend
qualification
last
private
property
disappear
ed
considerations
gave
birth
case
maxim
property
may
regulated
certain
extent
regulation
goes
far
recognized
taking
ibid
citation
omitted
justice
brandeis
argued
every
restriction
upon
use
property
imposed
exercise
police
power
deprives
owner
right
theretofore
enjoyed
sense
abridgment
state
rights
property
without
making
compensation
restriction
imposed
protect
public
health
safety
morals
dangers
threatened
taking
restriction
question
merely
prohibition
noxious
use
property
restricted
remains
possession
owner
state
appropriate
make
use
state
merely
prevents
owner
making
use
interferes
paramount
rights
public
mahon
brandeis
dissenting
concurring
opinion
palazzolo
justice
reaffirmed
approach
polestar
instead
remains
principles
set
forth
penn
central
cases
govern
partial
regulatory
takings
cases
interference
expectations
one
number
factors
must
examine
ibid
penn
central
supply
mathematically
precise
variables
instead
provides
important
guideposts
lead
ultimate
determination
whether
compensation
required
temptation
adopt
amount
per
se
rules
either
direction
must
resisted
takings
clause
requires
careful
examination
weighing
relevant
circumstances
context
justice
kennedy
concurred
judgment
basis
regulation
impact
reasonable
expectations
worth
noting
lucas
underscores
difference
physical
regulatory
takings
see
supra
physical
takings
cases
irrelevant
whether
property
owner
maintained
value
property
long
physical
appropriation
parcel
chief
justice
dissent
makes
mistake
carving
interest
property
rather
considering
parcel
whole
treating
regulations
covering
segment
analogous
total
taking
lucas
post
armstrong
like
lucas
case
involved
total
destruction
government
value
specific
property
interest
nevertheless
perfectly
clear
justice
black
comment
underlying
purpose
guarantee
private
property
shall
taken
public
use
without
compensation
applies
partial
takings
well
total
takings
brief
institute
justice
amicus
curiae
although
amicus
describes
cut
proposal
better
approach
far
primary
argument
penn
central
overruled
partial
takings
way
land
use
restriction
subject
prima
facie
rules
compensation
physical
occupation
limited
period
time
brief
petitioners
see
also
pet
cert
addition
recognize
anomaly
created
apply
penn
central
landowner
permanently
deprived
use
property
lucas
petitioners
fail
offer
persuasive
explanation
moratoria
treated
differently
ordinary
permit
delays
contend
permit
applicant
need
comply
certain
specific
requirements
order
receive
one
expect
develop
end
process
whereas
nothing
landowner
subject
moratorium
wait
guarantee
permit
granted
end
process
brief
petitioners
setting
aside
obvious
problem
basing
distinction
course
events
know
fact
context
facial
challenge
petitioners
argument
breaks
closer
examination
guarantee
permit
granted
decision
made
within
year
see
dufau
cl
holding
delay
granting
permit
constitute
temporary
taking
moreover
petitioners
modified
categorical
rule
per
se
taking
trpa
simply
delayed
action
permits
pending
regional
plan
fairness
justice
require
trpa
penalized
achieving
result
full
disclosure
see
santa
fe
village
venture
albuquerque
supp
moratorium
development
lands
within
petroglyph
national
monument
taking
williams
central
app
moratorium
development
gaming
district
studying
city
ability
absorb
growth
compensable
taking
woodbury
place
partners
woodbury
app
moratorium
pending
review
plan
land
adjacent
interstate
highway
taking
even
though
deprived
property
owner
economically
viable
use
property
two
years
zilber
moranga
supp
nd
cal
development
moratorium
completion
comprehensive
scheme
open
space
require
compensation
see
also
wayman
leaders
consider
options
town
growth
charlotte
observer
describing
building
moratorium
imposed
give
town
leaders
time
plan
development
wallman
city
may
put
reins
beach
projects
may
building
moratorium
beachfront
property
fort
lauderdale
pending
new
height
width
dispersal
regulations
foderaro
suburbs
cracking
joneses
times
mar
describing
moratorium
imposed
eastchester
new
york
review
town
zoning
code
address
problem
oversized
homes
dawson
commissioners
recommend
aboite
construction
ban
lifted
fort
wayne
news
sentinel
may
moratorium
allow
improvements
water
sewage
treatment
systems
see
juergensmeyer
roberts
land
use
planning
control
law
garvin
leitner
drafting
interim
development
ordinances
creating
time
plan
land
use
law
zoning
digest
june
planning
protected
need
hasty
adoption
permanent
controls
order
avoid
establishment
nonconforming
uses
respond
ad
hoc
fashion
specific
problems
instead
planning
implementation
process
may
permitted
run
full
natural
course
widespread
citizen
input
involvement
public
debate
full
consideration
issues
points
view
freilich
interim
development
controls
essential
tools
implementing
flexible
planning
zoning
urb
chief
justice
offers
another
alternative
suggesting
delays
six
years
treated
per
se
takings
however
dissent
offers
explanation
years
point
rather
days
months
years
worth
emphasizing
reject
categorical
rule
case
moratorium
harsh
instead
reject
categorical
rule
conclude
penn
central
framework
adequately
directs
inquiry
proper
considerations
one
length
delay
petitioner
preservation
council
authorized
representatives
actively
participated
entire
trpa
regional
planning
process
leading
adoption
regional
plan
issue
action
attended
expressed
views
concerns
orally
writing
public
hearing
held
defendant
trpa
connection
consideration
regional
plan
issue
herein
well
connection
adoption
ordinance
revised
regional
plan
addressed
herein
app
note
temporary
restriction
ultimately
upheld
first
english
case
lasted
six
years
replaced
permanent
regulation
first
english
evangelical
lutheran
church
glendale
county
los
angeles
cal
app
cal
rptr
several
already
statutes
authorizing
interim
zoning
ordinances
specific
time
limits
see
cal
govt
code
ann
west
supp
authorizing
interim
ordinance
two
years
rev
stat
six
months
rev
stat
ann
one
year
comp
laws
ann
three
years
stat
two
years
rev
stat
one
year
rev
stat
ann
months
codified
laws
two
years
utah
code
ann
months
rev
code
stat
two
years
although
without
specific
statutory
authority
recognized
reasonable
interim
zoning
ordinances
may
enacted
see
freil
triangle
oil
md
app
new
jersey
shore
builders
assn
dover
twp
super
sca
chemical
waste
konigsberg
sturgess
chilmark
mass
lebanon
woods
footnotes
bound
appeals
determination
petitioners
claim
supp
permitted
challenges
ordinance
regulation
petitioners
sought
certiorari
appeals
ruling
respondent
tahoe
regional
planning
agency
hereinafter
respondent
cause
petitioners
injury
pet
cert
grant
certiorari
petition
specific
questions
presented
formulated
following
question
whether
appeals
properly
determined
temporary
moratorium
land
development
constitute
taking
property
requiring
compensation
takings
clause
constitution
rule
provides
question
presented
deemed
comprise
every
subsidiary
question
fairly
included
therein
question
long
moratorium
land
development
lasted
necessarily
subsumed
within
question
whether
moratorium
constituted
taking
petitioners
assume
otherwise
brief
merits
argues
respondent
effectively
blocked
construction
past
two
decades
brief
petitioners
even
mistaken
view
ban
development
lasted
months
ban
case
exceeded
ban
lucas
dispute
compensation
required
cases
disagreement
involved
calculate
compensation
general
motors
example
issues
value
leasehold
interest
whether
rental
value
sole
measure
value
occupancy
whether
government
pay
respondent
removal
personal
property
condemned
warehouse
whether
government
pay
reduction
value
respondent
equipment
fixtures
left
warehouse
six
years
point
ante
length
involved
case
explanation
conclusion
taking
case
fact
moratorium
far
exceeds
moratorium
authorized
background
principles
state
property
law
see
infra
case
require
us
undertake
exacting
study
state
property
law
discern
exactly
long
moratorium
must
last
longer
considered
implied
limitation
property
ownership
assuming
moratorium
development
background
principle
state
property
law
see
infra
examples
state
laws
limiting
duration
moratoria
others
see
utah
code
ann
ii
temporary
prohibitions
development
may
exceed
six
months
duration
possibility
extensions
two
additional
periods
see
also
ante
footnotes
majority
decision
embrace
parcel
whole
doctrine
settled
puzzling
see
palazzolo
rhode
island
noting
times
expressed
discomfort
logic
parcel
whole
rule
lucas
south
carolina
coastal
council
recognizing
uncertainty
regarding
composition
denominator
deprivation
fraction
produced
inconsistent
pronouncements
relevant
calculus
difficult
question