Item B: Ordinance Concerning Goal 5 Natural Resources Study

Home Browse Search

2910 112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER 505 U.S. 1047 A I first question the Court's rationale fu creating a category that obviates a "case- specific inquiry into the public interest ad- vanced," ante, at 2893, if all economic value has been lost. If one fact about the Court's takings jurisprudence can be stated without contradiction, it is that "the particular cir- cumstances of each case" determine whether a specific restriction will be rendered invalid by the government's failure to pay compensa- tion. United States v. Central Eureka Min- ing Co., 357. U.S. 155, 168, 78 s.Ct. 1097, 1104, 2 L.Ed.2d 1228 (1958). This is so because although we have articulated ~ertain factors to be considered, including the eco- nomic impact on the property Owner, the ultimate conclusion "necessarily requires a weighing of private and public interests." Agins, 447 U.S., at 261, 100 S.Ct., at 2141. When the government regulation prevents the owner from any economically. valuable use of his property, the private intereSt is unquestionably substantial, but we have nev- er before held that no public interest can outweigh it. Instead the Court's prior deci- sions ''uniformly reject the proposition that diminution in property value, standing alone, can establish a 'taking.''' Penn Central Transp. Co. v. Ne:w York City, 438 U.S. 104, 131, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2663, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978). This Court repeatedly has recognized the ability of government, in certain circum- stances, to. regulate property without com- pensation no matter how adverse the finan- cial effect on the owner. may be. More than a century ago, the Court explicitly upheld the right of States to prohibit uses of property injurious to public health, safety, or welfare without paying compensation: "A prolubition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any just sense, be 8. Prior to Mugler. the Court had held that owners whose. real property is wholly destroyed to pre- vent the spread of a fire are not entitled t') compensation. Bowditch v. Boston. 101 U.S. 16. 18-19. 25 L.Ed. 980 (1880). And the Court deemed a taking or an appropriation of prop- erty." Mugler v. Kansas, 123.ll.048U.S., at 668-669, 8 S.Ct., at 301. On this basis, the Court upheld an ordinance effectively prohib- iting operation of a previously lawful brew- ery, although the "establishments will be- come of no value as property." Id., at 664, 8 S.Ct., at 298; see also id., at 668, 8 S.Ct., at 300. Mugler was only the beginning in a long line of cases.8 In PoweU v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S.Ct. 992, 32 L.Ed. 253 (1888), the Court upheld legislation prohib- iting the manufacture of oleomargarine, de- spite the owner's allegation that "if pre- vented from continuing it, the value of his property employed therein would be entire- ly lost and he be deprived of the means of livelihood." ld., at 682, 8 S.Ct., at 994. In Hadacheck v. Sebastian, 239 U.S. 394, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 (1915), the Court upheld an ordinance prolubiting a brick- yard, although the owner had m~de excava- tions on the land that prevented it from being utilized for any purpose but a brick- yard. Id., at 405, 36 S.Ct., at 143. In Miller v. Schoene, 276 U.S. 272, 48 S.Ct. 246, 72 L.Ed. 568 (1928), the Court held that the Fifth Amendment did not require Vll'ginia to pay compensation to the owner of cedar trees ordered destroyed to prevent a disease from spreading to nearby apple orchards. The "preferment of [the public interest] over the property interest of the individual, to the extent even of its destruc- tion, is one of the distinguishing character- istics of every exercise of the police power which affects property." ld., at 280, 48 S.Ct., at 247. Again, in Omnia Commer- cial Co. v. United States, 261 U.S. 502, 43 S.Ct. 437, 67 L.Ed. 773 (1923), the Court stated that "destruction of, or injury to, property. is frequently accomplished without recognized in the License Cases. 5 How. 504. 589. 12 t.Ed. 256 (1847) (opinion of McLean, J.). that "[tlhe acknowledged police power of a State extends .often to the destruction of property."