|
<br />2924
<br />
<br />112 SUPREME COURT REPORTER
<br />
<br />505 U.S. 1073
<br />
<br />tion requiring the installation of a junction
<br />box owned by a third party, Loretta v. Tele-
<br />prompter Manlwitan CATV Corp., 458 U.S.
<br />419, 102 S.Ct. 3164, 73 L.Ed.2d 868 (1982), is
<br />more troubling than a regulation requiring
<br />the installation of sprinklers or smoke detec-
<br />tors: just as an order granting third parties
<br />access to a marina, Kaiser Aetna v. United
<br />States, 444 U.S. 164, 100 S.Ct. 383, 62
<br />L.Ed.2d 332 (1979), is more troubling than an
<br />order requiring the placement of safety
<br />buoys in the marina.
<br />
<br />landowners, but rather regulates the use of
<br />the coastline of the entire State. See S.C.
<br />Code Ann. fi 48-39-10 (Supp.1990). Indeed,
<br />South Carolina's Act is best understood as
<br />part of a national effort to protect the coast-
<br />line, one initiated by the federal Coastal
<br />Zone Management Act of 1972. Pub.L. 92-
<br />583, 86 Stat. 1280, codified as amended at 16
<br />D.S.C. ~ 1451 et seq. Pursuant to the feder-
<br />al Act, every coastal State has implemented
<br />coastline regulations.9 Moreover, the Act did
<br />not single out owners of undeveloped land.
<br />The Act also prohibited owners of developed
<br />In analyzing takings claims, courts have land from rebuilding if their structures were
<br />long recognized the difference between a destroyed, see 1988 S.C. Acts 634, fi 3,lOand
<br />regulation that targets one or two parcels of what is equally significant, from repairing
<br />land and a regulation that enforces a state- erosion control devices, such as seawalls, see
<br />wide policy. See, e.g., AA Profiles, Inc. v. S.C. Code Ann. ~ 48-39-290(B)(2) (Supp.
<br />Ft. Lauderdale, 850 F.2d 1483, 1488 (CAll 1990). In addition, in some situations, own-
<br />1988): Wheeler v. Pleasant Grove, 664 F.2d ers of developed land were required to "re-
<br />99, 100 (CA5 1981); Trustees Under WiU of nouris[h] the beach ... on a yearly basis
<br />Pomeroy 'Ii. Westlake, 357 So.2d 1299, 1304 with an amount... of sand... not... less
<br />(La.App.1978): see also Burrows v. Keene, than one and one-half times the yearly vol-
<br />12 N H 90 ume of sand lost due to erosion." 1988 S.C.
<br />1 .. 5 . 596, 432 A.2d 15, 21 (1981):
<br />Herman Glick Realty Co. v. St. Louis Coun- Acts 634, ~ 3, p. 5140.11 In short, the South
<br />ty, 545 S.W.2d 320, 324-325 (Mo.App.i976): Carolina Act imposed substantial burdens on
<br />Huttig v. Richmond Heights.:...JJyi4372 S.W.2d I~~d aliko~ ~veIThop~d andalitund~vdi~lopetesd
<br />83 OAt) 0..> ( ~,....... e. 18 gener :y m ca
<br />3, ~ Mo.1963). As one early court th t th Act' t U rt to . . te
<br />. . a e 18 no an euo expropna
<br />stated With regard to a waterfront regula- f dId I d
<br />. owners 0 un eve ope an.
<br />tion, "If such restraint were in fact imposed
<br />upon the estate of one proprietor only, out of
<br />several estates on the same line of shore, the
<br />objection would be much more formidable."
<br />Commonwealth v. Alger, 61 Mass. 53, 102
<br />(1851).
<br />
<br />In considering Lucas' claim, the generality
<br />of the Beachfront Management Act is signifi-
<br />cant. The Act does not target particular
<br />
<br />9. See Zalkin, Shifting Sands and Shifting Doc-
<br />trines: The Supreme Court's Changing Takings
<br />Doctrine and South Carolina's Coastal Zone
<br />Statute, 79 Calif.L.Rev. 205, 216-217, nn. 46-47
<br />(1991) (collecting statutes).
<br />
<br />10. This provision was amended in 1990. See
<br />S.C. Code Ann. ~ 48-39-290(B) (Supp.1990).
<br />
<br />11. This provision was amended in 1990; authori-
<br />ty for renourishment was shifted to local govern-
<br />ments. See S.C. Code Ann. ~ 48-39-350(A)
<br />(Supp.1990).
<br />
<br />Admittedly, the economic impact of this
<br />regulation is dramatic and petitioner's invest-
<br />ment-backed expectations are substantial.
<br />Yet, if anything, the costs to and expectations
<br />of the owners of developed land are even
<br />greater: I doubt, however, that the cost to
<br />owners of deyeloped land of renourishing the
<br />beach and allowing their seawalls to deterio-
<br />rate effects a taking. The costs imposed on
<br />
<br />lZ. In this regard. the Act more closely resembles
<br />the Subsidence Act in Keystone than the Kohler
<br />Act in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon. 260 U.S.
<br />393,43 S.Ct. 158.67 L.Ed. 322 (1922), and more
<br />closely resembles the general zoning scheme in
<br />Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47
<br />S.Ct. 114. 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926), than the specific
<br />landmark designation in Penn Central Transpor-
<br />tation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104. 98.
<br />S.Ct. 2646. 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978).
<br />
|