Navigation

Archive | Regulatory Taking

December 13, 2022

Food Truck Regulations Bring Property-Rights Claim

Jacksonville, North Carolina adopted several food truck regulations that brought many legal challenges.  One of those regulations was to ban food trucks on any property that sits within 250 feet of property with a brick-and-mortar restaurant or residential housing.  There is another regulation which bans food trucks from operating within 250 feet of each other. Within Jacksonville’s city limits open to food trucks, potential operators face other barriers. Another challenged regulation involves advertising.  Food trucks are limited to one sign no taller or wider than five feet.  The sign can… read more

By
Posted in Food Truck, Inverse Condemnation, Property Rights, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

September 23, 2021

The Three Forms of Takings for Eminent Domain

The National Law Review had a brilliant article on the forms of takings in eminent domain.  (September 23, 2021, Vol. XI, Number 266) The simplest to describe and the most common is a physical taking.   Physical takings are the straight forward process of a government or other entity with the power of eminent domain. The second type is a regulatory taking.  This means the economic input factor comparing value that has been taken and the value which remains post-regulatory taking.  Regulatory takings are commonly called inverse condemnation. The third is… read more

By
Posted in Physical Taking, Pro Tanto Taking, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

July 2, 2021

SCOTUS Hands Down Another Important Property Rights Case: Pakdel v City and County of San Francisco

On June 28, 2021, the Supreme Court rendered a unanimous per curiam decision, Pakdel v City and County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. ____ (2021). The lawsuit involved a regulatory taking claim.  The City had required that as a condition of converting a tenancy-in-common to a condominium, that the owner must first offer any tenant a lifetime lease.  The Ninth Circuit held that the Plaintiffs, even though they requested two exemptions, did not present a final decision and, hence, their claim was not ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n… read more

By
Posted in Per Se Taking, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

May 11, 2018

ANOTHER FIFTH AMENDMENT CLAIM STRUCK DOWN

          The Second Department held that the City of New York did not take property from taxicab companies that own medallions.  The proceeding arises out of the rapid growth of for-hire vehicle services provided by companies such as Uber which allow passengers to use a smartphone application to electronically request on-demand ground transportation. The Court held, inter alia: Moreover, we agree with the Supreme Court’s determination that the TLC’s alleged decision to “allow black cars to pick up e-hails” did not, as a matter of law, constitute an unconstitutional taking… read more

By
Posted in Fifth Amendment, Inverse Condemnation, Regulatory Taking
Read more > 0

January 8, 2018

CLARITY FOR NEW YORK TAKINGS LAW

Determining whether or not a government regulation constitutes a “taking” for the purposes of the Fifth Amendment can be a complex endeavor.  The recent Second Department decision of Matter of New Creek Bluebelt, Phase 3 (Baycrest Manor Inc.), ___ A.D.3d ____, 2017 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8042, (November 15, 2017), provides some guidance on three important regulatory takings issues. The underling case was not a regulatory taking per se.  Rather, the City of New York condemned property that was 100% wetlands.  Had the City not taken title, the owner could… read more

By
Posted in Regulatory Taking, Subsequent Purchases, Wetlands
Read more > 0