Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council Inc. v. Tahoe Regional
Planning Council
535 U.S. 302 (2002)
Lake
Tahoe Basin falls within both California and Nevada. Those two states
created the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) to plan the development
of the basin. Between 1981-1984 the TRPA issued two moratoriums on
virtually all residential development within the basin.
The
first moratorium lasted roughly 24 months and the second lasted about 8
months until the TRPA had adopted its comprehensive land-use plan.
Tahoe-Sierra
are a group of persons who own real estate within the jurisdiction of the
TRPA and were therefore subject to the moratoria. Tahoe-Sierra sued on the
grounds that the moratoria were in fact takings, and were barred under the 5th Amendment
without just compensation.
The
Trial Court found for Tahoe-Sierra.TRPA appealed.
The
Trial Court found that even though the land retained some value during
the period of the moratoria the landowners were, for a time, completely
deprived of any economic use of their land, therefore a taking had
occurred.
The
Appellate court reversed.Tahoe-Sierra appealed.
The
Appellate Court found that since the moratoria had only temporary impact
on the landowners property no taking
occurred and no compensation was required.
The
US Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court and said that the moratoria
was not a taking.
The
US Supreme Court agreed with the Appellate Court's finding 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.
Similar
to Penn Central Transportation Company v. City of New York, this goes to the issue of conceptual
severance.You
can't argue that you've lost 100% of a part of the value of the property.
In
order to be considered a taking,
you generally have to argue that you've lost 100% of the value of the
property.
