Riverfront Redevelopment

. Drawing from your assigned readings,

a. Have the courts found that a “taking” occurs if a zoning regulation prevents a landowner from exploiting the most profitable use of her land?

No, the Courts have not. In Penn Central V. City of NY, even though zoning regulation prevents the exercise of the “property’s most profitable use”, Courts found that there is no taking if “the ordinance did not prevent the owners reasonable use of the property”. The courts had make clear that “there could be no taking since the law had not transferred control of the property” because “a taking may more readily be found when the interference with the property can be characterized as a physical invasion by the government”. In Welch V. Swasey, Courts did not found a “taking” when height restrictions prevented him to add density to the land thus decreasing the developer profit.

b. Which types of land use regulations/mitigations/exactions are likely to pass constitutional muster? Which types are beyond the pale (over-reaching)?

To enforce zoning regulations some critical aspects must be considered; 1) the proposed law should be directed to entire area of the city and not to individual parcels, 2) the condition imposed should “qualify the type of legitimate public proposes” meaning that the new ruling must be directed to the overall benefit of the city. 3) the ruling cannot require third parties “to give up their constitutional rights”, and 4) the ruling has to be “rough proportionality between the government’s demand and the effects of the proposed land use.” Regulations beyond the pale are those that are arbitrary and unreasonable, or substantially unrelated to the public health, safety, morals or general welfare; a city requesting for donations or funding off-site mitigation works are examples of over-reaching regulations.

c. Did the recent U.S. supreme Court decision in Koontz extend the reach of Nollan and Dolan? If so, why? If not, why not?

This decision extends the reach of...