Lucas_V._South_Carolina_Coastal_Council

The two types of regulatory actions that automatically trigger compensation as takings without a court needing to examine the circumstances in a specific case way are described on page 218 of the text. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical “invasion” of his property (Halbert & Lingulli, p.218). Compensation is rewarded regardless of the size of the intrusion and the public purpose behind it. The second type of regulatory action is when the regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of the land. In this case, Lucas has suffered a taking and his land is basically being left idle with no economically beneficial use left in it. The regulation must count as a taking unless it simply forbids a use already forbidden under the common law (Halbert & Lingulli, p.219). At that point, compensation would not be guaranteed. Justice Blackmun objects to the takings approach laid out by the majority because he feels that Lucas has not lost all economical value in the property. For many years prior to Congress passing the Coastal Zone Management Act and South Carolina passing the Coastal Zone Management Act and Beachfront Management Act, Lucas’s property had a history of flooding and requiring emergency response actions for sandbags and danger of local structures collapsing. Based on the history of the property, Lucas understood the magnitude of the local environment. Justice Blackmun sees the court’s finding that the property had lost all economical value as a result of the Acts as most certainly erroneous (Halbert & Lingulli, p.220). Although Lucas may no longer use the property as a residential establishment due to safety concerns, the land can still be used for picnics, camping, or establishing a residence in a moveable trailer. He also retains the right to sell this property which would have value for the surrounding neighbors and those citizens wishing to use the land and enjoy ocean views with a large residential unit in the way. The Justice feels there has not been a complete and total loss of all economic value in this situation. Cities cannot take private property and transfer it to private developers for the sake of economic revitalization. Uncompensated regulatory takings of private property have become an immense problem across the nation. As federal, state, and local regulations have increased in number and scope, property owners have increasingly found themselves unable to use their property and unable to recover the losses that result. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause reads: "nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation." As presently interpreted by the Court, that clause enables owners to receive compensation when their entire estate is taken by a government agency and title transfers to the government; when their property is physically invaded by government order, either permanently or temporarily;(2) when regulation for other than health or safety reasons takes all or nearly all of the value of the property;(3) and when government attaches unreasonable or disproportionate permit conditions on use(4)(Pilon, PhD.). There are so many definitions and interpretations of the words in this clause, that it is very difficult to protect private owners in this situation. The rulings need to be reorganized in a more concrete fashion, offering clear definitions of the controversial words that cause these issues in the first place. It does not seem fair that a private developer can come in and take a piece of property unless the owner has willingly given it up. For example, Tiffin University has not demanded the local residents give up their homes so they can in turn, make more “On Campus” housing options available. Instead, the residents willingly sell their homes and then they are turned into student housing. -What are the ethical issues surrounding the principle of using eminent domain to take away the property ownership rights of individuals' Eminent domain is defined as the power to take private property for public use (Halbert & Lingulli, p.220). Eminent domain is most commonly used by the government to enable public projects such as building highways, utility lines, parks and transit systems. Basically, if the local, state and federal governments want to build a light rail through your backyard, they may do so as long as you are adequately compensated for the taking of your property. There are ethical issues that arise for both the government and private owners. Though there is a clouded definition of what adequately compensates one for a taking, how does one actually determine how much is enough' If a private owner is told there will be a road built through their kitchen and this kitchen has been in the family for many years, will the government be able to monetarily make up for their loss' It doesn’t seem fair or ethical to take someone’s home for a road. The government must do extensive research to make sure they are doing what’s best for everyone at stake prior to making such a large decision that will ultimately affect many people. If I purchased land and then was told the government would be taking it away or that I could not do as I wished with my land, just like anyone, I would be upset. The problem arises when one invests in such a large asset and does not do any research prior to the purchase. If I were in Lucas’s position, I would have taken into consideration that for 40 years prior to any sort of Act enacted by Congress, that particular area was susceptible to flooding and beach erosion. When determining when and where I would like to purchase, I would find out as much detail and if there is any chance in the near future that this particular area would go into the control of the government for protection and or by eminent domain. Of course this may not be able to be predicted entirely, but I can be as educated as possible with my surroundings and the environment in which I plan to purchase on or around. If the government provided information on the area and I knew this was a “critical area” that could potentially be seized in the future, I would be making a risky choice to purchase knowing I could face issues down the road. If the government did not provide any information and granted me the permit anyway, I would be extremely upset if they decided to take my land and turn it into a parking lot. References Halbert, T., & Ingulli, E. (2009). Law & Ethics in the Business Environment. Mason: South- Western. Pilon, R. (1995). Protecting Private Property Rights from Regulatory Takings. Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato Institute.