Document Type

Article

Publication Title

Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review

Abstract

Of the four decisions before the Supreme Court, one - PFZ Properties, Inc. v. Rodriguez - was dismissed on the ground that certiorari was improvidently granted. A second, Nordlinger v. Hahn, resulted in a clean victory for the State of California with its "welcome stranger" system of real estate taxation. A third, Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, gave some limited protection to landowners in land-use settings. But its importance is limited because the Court appears to have adopted a powerful "hands off" attitude to all forms of partial restrictions on land use-a subject that dwarfs the importance of the peculiar circumstances of Lucas, the total wipeout of all land uses. Finally, the decision on which I shall comment here, Yee v. City of Escondido, addressed the status of state and local regulation of mobile home parks and narrowly constrained the class of physical takings subject to heightened scrutiny under the Court's current takings jurisprudence. These four decisions show that there remains, in some substantive areas at least, too much continuity between the work of the Warren and Burger Courts and the Rehnquist Court. These cases also confirm the worst fears of those who, like myself, regard the current body of takings law as a constitutional travesty in need of substantial judicial correction. The major flaw of the law of takings before Lucas and Yee was that it conceded too extensive powers to the State, especially in the area of land use regulation. In Yee, this error has been compounded with a vengeance.

First Page

3

Volume

26

Publication Date

1992

Download

Share

COinS