Reasonable regulation.Byline: The Register-Guard The U.S. Supreme Court recently gave a much-needed rebuke to property-rights zealots Zealots (zĕl`əts), Jewish faction traced back to the revolt of the Maccabees (2d cent. B.C.). The name was first recorded by the Jewish historian Josephus as a designation for the Jewish resistance fighters of the war of A.D. 66–73. who have long sought to roll back governments' use of environmental and zoning laws to protect natural resources. The decision upheld a development moratorium A suspension of activity or an authorized period of delay or waiting. A moratorium is sometimes agreed upon by the interested parties, or it may be authorized or imposed by operation of law. enacted to protect Lake Tahoe from pollution, reversing a 15-year history of high court rulings that have steadily expanded private-property rights against government regulation. While the 6-3 ruling has a narrow application that deals with temporary restrictions on land use, it should nonetheless help protect the public interest against radical interpretations of the "takings" clause of the U.S. Constitution. The clause of the Fifth Amendment stating that private property shall not "be taken for public use, without just compensation" traditionally was applied to government condemnation of land for uses ranging from roadways to parks. In recent years, however, a potent combination of property rights activists and developers has argued that the clause should apply to a broader range of regulations - from zoning laws to clean water rules. In Oregon, this movement manifested itself two years ago in the passage of Measure 7, a superficially appealing but thoroughly radical initiative aimed at rolling back the state's nationally recognized land use laws. The measure was later ruled unconstitutional unconstitutional adj. referring to a statute, governmental conduct, court decision or private contract (such as a covenant which purports to limit transfer of real property only to Caucasians) which violate one or more provisions of the U. S. Constitution. , and an appeal is pending in the Oregon Supreme Court The Oregon Supreme Court (OSC) is the highest state court in the U.S. state of Oregon. The only court that may reverse or modify a decision of the Oregon Supreme Court is the Supreme Court of the United States. . The Lake Tahoe case can be traced to the 1950s,when runoff Runoff The procedure of printing the end-of-day prices for every stock on an exchange onto ticker tape. Notes: If the "tape is late" then it can take a long time to print off all the closing prices. from development fueled algae algae (ăl`jē) [plural of Lat. alga=seaweed], a large and diverse group of primarily aquatic plantlike organisms. These organisms were previously classified as a primitive subkingdom of the plant kingdom, the thallophytes (plants that growth that clouded the lake's legendary clarity. Acting with appropriate concern, Nevada and California formed the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (or TRPA) was formed in 1969 through a bi-state compact between California and Nevada which was ratified by the U.S. Congress. The agency is mandated to protect the environment of the Lake Tahoe Basin through land-use regulations and is one of . The agency enacted several lake conservation measures, including temporary moratoriums on new development. A coalition of landowners and developers took the agency to court, arguing that they had been deprived of all "economically viable" uses of their land and that they deserved compensation. The Supreme Court rightly rejected that claim, observing that if temporary restrictions on development were deemed "takings," then so could virtually any land use or environmental regulation. Writing for the majority, Justice John Paul Stevens John Paul Stevens (born April 20, 1920) is currently the most senior Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He joined the Court in 1975 and is the oldest and longest serving incumbent member of the Court. noted that requiring governments to compensate victims of such regulations could turn land use controls into a "luxury few governments could afford." The Supreme Court's ruling should not be interpreted as an endorsement of arbitrary, irresponsible zoning practices. But it does recognize that there are times when governments can fairly and reasonably require private individuals to contribute to the good of a public to which those individuals very much belong. |
|
||||||||||||||||
Printer friendly
Cite/link
Email
Feedback
Reader Opinion