The concept of “public purpose” is defined broadly. The use of eminent domain by private parties to carry out a city-approved development plan to promote economic development was not unconstitutional.
Hawai’i Housing Authority v. Midkiff
The “Public Use” requirement is coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers. The Government itself does not have to use the property. Hawaii statute that permitted condemnation of residential tracts to transfer ownership to existing lessees to reduce concentration of land ownership served a legitimate public purpose and was not a purely private taking.
Berman v. Parker (US Supreme Court 1954)
The 5th Amendment’s “Public Use” clause includes a “public purpose” for which Congress could properly exercise its police powers. Acquiring property for redevelopment project for aesthetic improvement was constitutional.
Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District
Exaction analysis applies whether government imposes conditions on approval or denies an permit, and includes money exactions for offsite mitigation.
Dolan v. City of Tigard
Establishes “rough proportionality” test for exactions.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
There must be an essential link, or “nexus” between an exaction and a legitimate government interest.
Berman v. Parker
Land use may be regulated for aesthetic purposes.
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey
Compensation is the remedy for a property taking.
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis
The entire range of property rights available to the owner is critical to a takings analysis.
- Page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
