ON APRIL 23, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a 32-month moratorium on development around Lake Tahoe pending establishment of a comprehensive regional land use plan. Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.[1]� Hailed in some quarters as a “giant step backwards,”[2]� and in others as “the best news from the Court on takings in 20 years,”[3]� Tahoe resolved a substantial question that had been looming over the direction of the Supreme Court’s takings jurisprudence, with important implications for the ability of local governments to regulate land use.
The moratorium in Tahoe had been put in place to provide an opportunity to draw up appropriate regulations that would protect the unique and fragile environment of Lake Tahoe from being destroyed by overdevelopment. The plaintiff land owners contended that those subject to the moratorium should be compensated for the interim loss of their rights to develop their properties. The essence of their claim was that the moratorium was a “regulatory taking” under the Fifth Amendment’s Just Compensation Clause.[4]�
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
