Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Council
535 U.S. 302 (2002)
California and Nevada
created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to plan the development
of the Lake Tahoe basin. TRPA issued two moratoriums on
virtually all residential development within the basin.
first moratorium lasted roughly 24 months and the second lasted about 8
months until the TRPA had adopted its comprehensive land-use plan.
People who owned real estate within the jurisdiction of the TRPA didn't think the moratoria were fair. They formed TSPCI and sued on the
grounds that the moratoria were in fact takings, and were barred under the 5th Amendment
without just compensation.
Trial Court found for TSPCI.TRPA appealed.
Trial Court found that even though the land retained some value during
the period of the moratoria the landowners were temporarily completely
deprived of any economic use of their land, therefore a taking had
Appellate Court reversed.TSPCI appealed.
Appellate Court found that since the moratoria had only temporary impact
on the landowners property no taking
occurred and no compensation was required.
US Supreme Court affirmed.
US Supreme Courtfound that a fee
simple estate cannot be rendered valueless by a temporary prohibition on
the economic use, because the property will recover value as soon as the
prohibition is lifted.
to Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York (438 U.S. 104 (1978)), this goes to the issue of conceptual
can't argue that you've lost 100% of a part of the value of the property.
order to be considered a taking,
you generally have to argue that you've lost 100% of the value of the
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (505 U.S. 1003 (1992)).