Loading article preview...

• See other documents that cite the same legislation

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey: Drawing the Battle Lines Clearly

I. Introduction

Recently, there has been a nationwide increase in concern over urbanization and its negative effects. As a result, legislators and politicians have increasingly regulated land use to address issues such as urban sprawl and conservation.1 The resulting governmental measures frequently conflict with landowners' freedom to use their property as they wish. Consequently, the competing interests of the government and landowners will be presented in the courtroom. As this legal issue presents itself with more frequency, the law of regulatory takings will become an increasingly critical area of the law. The law in this area should be as clear as possible so that governments can draft sound legislation to protect against the negative effects of irresponsible land use. At the same time, regulatory takings law should be unambiguous so that the rights of landowners are protected and development decisions can be planned with certainty.

The basis of regulatory takings law is contained in the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation."2 The Supreme Court recognized early that the Constitution would not support a law that purported to take land from one person and give it to another.3 It is clear that "unambiguous governmental seizure of private property for public use-a sufficiently clear laying-on of official hands followed by a transfer of possession and title to the general public-is unconstitutional unless followed by payment to the former owner of the fair market value of what was taken."4 This quote illustrates the common conception of what constitutes a taking-a physical invasion of property that alters the owner's relationship to the thing, preventing him or her from using it.5 In contrast, a regulatory taking occurs when the government, through regulation, exercises too much control over a person's property.6

The Supreme Court's seminal decision involving regulatory takings is Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon.7 In Pennsylvania Coal, Justice Holmes stated that "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking."8 These words placed before the Court an issue that has "plagued [it] for over six decades"-how far is too far?9

Recently, the Supreme Court dealt with the issue of regulatory takings in City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey,10 but failed to clarify its prior takings jurisprudence. This note discusses the Supreme Court's opinion in Del Monte Dunes, focusing on the standard used by the Court in its regulatory takings jurisprudence.

II. Facts of Del Mont...

If you are already a vLex customer, Access Here