Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

Page 5 oflO suburban property in the State of California. App. 3. The ridgelands that appellants own "possess magnificent views of San Francisco Bay and the scenic surrounding areas [and] have the highest market values of all lands" in Tiburon. Id., at 4. Rezoning of the land "forever prevented [its] development for residential use. . . ." Id., at 5. Therefore, the appellants contended, the city had "completely destroyed the value of [appellants'] property for any purpose or use whatsoever. . . ." Id., at 7. [FN3] FN2. Inverse condemnation should be distinguished from eminent domain. Eminent domain refers to a legal proceeding in which a government asserts its authority to condemn property. United States v. Clarke, 445 U.S. 253, 255-258,100 S.Ct. 1127, 1129-1130,63 L.Ed.2d 373 (1980). Inverse condemnation is "a shorthand description of the manner in which a landowner recovers just compensation for a taking of his property when condemnation proceedings have not been instituted." Id., at 257, 100 S.Ct. at 1130. FN3. The appellants also contended that the city's aborted attempt to acquire the land through eminent domain had destroyed the use of the land during the pendency of the condemnation proceedings. App. 10. The city demurred, claiming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action. The Superior Court sustained the demurrer, [FN4] and the California Supreme Court affirmed. 24 Cal.3d 266, 157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25 (1979). The State Supreme Court *259 first considered the inverse condemnation claim. It held that a landowner who challenges the constitutionality of a zoning ordinance may not "sue in inverse condemnation and thereby transmute an excessive use of the police power into a lawful taking for which compensation in eminent domain must be paid." Id., at 273, 157 Cal.Rptr. at 375,598 P.2d, at 28. The sole remedies for such a taking, the court concluded, are mandamus and declaratory judgment. Turning therefore to the appellants' claim for declaratory relief, the California Supreme Court held that the zoning ordinances had not deprived the appellants of their property **2141 without compensation in violation of the Fifth Amendment. [FN5] FN4. The State Superior Court granted the appellants leave to amend the cause of action seeking a declaratory judgment, but the appellants did not avail themselves of that opportunity. FN5. The California Supreme Court also rejected appellants' argument that the institution and abandonment of eminent domain proceedings themselves constituted a taking. The court found that the city had acted reasonably and that general municipal planning decisions do not violate the Fifth Amendment. [3] We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U.S. 1011, 100 S.Ct. 658,62 L.Ed.2d 639 (1980). We now affirm the holding that the zoning ordinances on their face does not take the appellants' property without just compensation. [FN6] 9/26/2005