| Main Menu
|
|
 Printerfriendly display
Private Property:
Liberty Garden takes on confiscatory court ruling
California Supreme Court Ruling, Landgate, under attack |
|
|
| Another Landgate-related case now pending on appeal is Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz wherein it is being argued that Landgate is no longer the law due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lingle v. Chevron. | | Related links:
|
| |
California Supreme Court Ruling, Landgate, under attack
Another Landgate-related case now pending on appeal is Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz wherein it is being argued that Landgate is no longer the law due to the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Lingle v. Chevron (2005) 544 U.S. 528. There the Court declared “Twenty-five years ago, the Court posited that a regulation of private property ‘effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interes[t].’ … Today we correct course. We hold that the ‘substantially advances’ formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.” Under Lingle, a takings analysis “focuses directly upon the severity of the burden that government imposes upon private property rights.” This is to be contrasted with Landgate, wherein the California Supreme Court determined that “[t]he proper inquiry is … whether there is, objectively, sufficient connection between the land use regulation in question and a legitimate governmental purpose so that the latter may be said to substantially advance the former.”
 |
|
Written by Michael Zumbrun |
|
Printerfriendly display
|
|
Now showing!
Shaw v Santa Cruz County: Shaw Appeals
Disincentives preclude innovation
“Because of the Endangered Species Act—what developer or land owner would want to purchase or own the land and do what we are doing? Disincentives preclude innovation. It is no wonder that no one else is following this common sense formulation for success: Pull the weeds and manage the plants and the hydrology.”
- Michael Shaw
Liberty Garden takes on confiscatory court ruling
“Twenty-five years ago, the Court posited that a regulation of private property ‘effects a taking if [it] does not substantially advance [a] legitimate state interes[t]... Today we correct course. We hold that the ‘substantially advances’ formula is not a valid takings test, and indeed conclude that it has no proper place in our takings jurisprudence.”
-Ron Zumbrun
Read more>
Login
|
