In doing so, the court expressly overruled several state court decisions that applied a more complicated analysis than federal law, and which appeared to impose a stricter standard of reviewing government regulations impacting private property than under federal law.įor a more detailed summary, see our blog post Yim I and Yim II Clarify Washington Regulatory Takings and Substantive Due Process Law. The Court made clear that the federal analysis for both regulatory takings and substantive due process are to be applied to challenges under both the state and federal constitutions, and that there is no separate test for evaluating state constitutional claims. In Yim I, plaintiffs challenged two new Seattle ordinances impacting a landlord’s ability to select and screen tenants on state constitutional grounds (see also the Yim II decision). The Washington State Supreme Court clarified this question in its Yim I and Yim II decisions. Note that there was significant confusion in Washington State about the appropriate tests to apply to determine whether there was a violation of the state and federal takings or substantive due process provisions with regard to regulations impacting private property. This is a standard that is deferential to local policymakers. Substantive due process basically requires that there be a rational basis, which requires only that a challenged regulation be rationally related to a legitimate state interest. ![]() Both the federal and state constitutions provide due process protections through the Fourteenth Amendment and article 1, section 3 respectively. Substantive Due Process and Regulation of Private PropertyĬourts have also used a "substantive due process" test to analyze the burdens imposed by land use regulations. As long as a regulation allows property to be put to productive economic use, the property has value, and the regulation will not be deemed to deny all reasonable economic use of the property there is no regulatory taking in that situation. In a takings challenge to a regulation, courts generally do not require compensation when the regulation merely decreases property value or prevents property owners from doing exactly what they want with their property. Property owners do not have a constitutional right to the most profitable use of their property. A suit alleging a regulatory taking is also called an "inverse condemnation" action. When adopting regulations, the affected property owner typically initiates a lawsuit to protest the effect of the regulations. When physically appropriating the property the government typically institutes eminent domain proceedings, also called condemnation. By regulating or limiting the use of property under the government's police power authority in such a way as to destroy one or more of the fundamental attributes of ownership (the right to possess, exclude others, and to dispose of property), deny all reasonable economic use of the property, or require the property owner to provide a public benefit rather than addressing some public impact caused by a proposed use.By physically appropriating the property, such as for a right-of-way.A government may "take" property in two basic ways: Just compensation is considered to be the fair market value of the property at the time of the taking. Mahon (1922).īoth the federal and Washington State constitutions provide that the government may not take private property unless it is for a public use and just compensation is paid. Supreme Court first recognized such regulatory takings in 1922. However, both federal and state courts have recognized that government regulation can go "too far" so as to have the same effect on a property owner as if the government had actually physically appropriated the land. They may regulate property for purposes such as abating nuisances, enforcing building and health codes, zoning and planning, and environmental protection. ![]() Pursuant to that authority, a city or county may regulate the use of property. ![]() ![]() Authority to Regulate the Use of PropertyĪrticle 11, section 11 of the Washington State constitution grants cities and counties the police power authority to protect the public health, safety, and welfare.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |