Takings

Takings

MGT623: Legal and Ethical Issues in Management

The Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case is complicated and confusing. Without any understanding of climate change or SEC regulations a person may just consider the case moot. However, this case set precedence with the ramification of the takings clause within the Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution.

There are two types of regulatory action that automatically trigger compensation as takings, without a court needing to examine the circumstances in a case-specific way. The first regulation requires the property owner’s property to be physically invaded. “No matter how minute the intrusion, and no matter how weighty the public purpose behind it, we have required compensation” (Halbert & Ingulli, pg. 233). As per the example given in the textbook of landlord’s property being physically invaded when cable companies run cable for tenants. The second type of regulatory action that triggers compensation as takings, without a court needing to examine the circumstances in a case-specific way, are regulations that deprive a land owner of productive or economically beneficial use of said land (Halbert & Ingulli, pg. 233). If a landowner loses all economic use or benefit of his land then he has suffered a taking (Halbert & Ingulli, pg. 233).

In the Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council case the dissent in the case believes that the taking in this case is well supported due to the fact the government has the right to take the property or limit the use of the property. The dissent contends that David Lucas is not being deprived of all means to enjoy and have productive use of the said property. David Lucas could still utilize said property for “picnic, swim, camp in a tent or live on the property in a moveable trailer” as well as lease or sell the property for economic benefit to adjoining neighbors (Halbert & Ingulli, pg. 234).

Cities would have the right to take private property and...