agenciesrespring

PaceEnvironmentalLawReviewPaceEnvironmentalLawReviewVolume20Issue1SymposiumEditionArticle12January2003TheQuietRevolutionRedux:HowSelectedLocalGovernmentsTheQuietRevolutionRedux:HowSelectedLocalGovernmentsHaveFaredHaveFaredDavidL.
CalliesFollowthisandadditionalworksat:https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelrRecommendedCitationRecommendedCitationDavidL.
Callies,TheQuietRevolutionRedux:HowSelectedLocalGovernmentsHaveFared,20PaceEnvtl.
L.
Rev.
277(2003)Availableat:https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12ThisArticleisbroughttoyouforfreeandopenaccessbytheSchoolofLawatDigitalCommons@Pace.
IthasbeenacceptedforinclusioninPaceEnvironmentalLawReviewbyanauthorizedadministratorofDigitalCommons@Pace.
Formoreinformation,pleasecontactdheller2@law.
pace.
edu.
TheQuietRevolutionRedux:HowSelectedLocalGovernmentsHaveFaredDAVIDL.
CALLIES*I.
IntroductionThiscountryisinthemidstofarevolutioninthewayweregu-latetheuseofourland.
Itisapeacefulrevolution,conductedentirelywithinthelaw.
.
.
.
Theancientregimebeingover-thrownisthefeudalsystemunderwhichtheentirepatternoflanddevelopmenthasbeencontrolledbythousandsofindivid-uallocalgovernments,eachseekingtomaximizeitstaxbaseandminimizeitssocialproblems,andcaringlesswhathappenstoalltheothers.
Thetoolsoftherevolutionarenewlawstakingawidevarietyofformsbuteachsharingacommontheme-theneedtoprovidesomedegreeofstateorregionalparticipationinthemajordeci-sionsthataffecttheuseofourincreasinglylimitedsupplyofland.
1SobegantheintroductiontoTheQuietRevolutioninLandUseControl.
Astherestofthatintroductionindicates,thepur-poseofthestudywastodiscussandanalyzethenewlawsenactedbyselectedstates,allofwhich"tookback"someofthepolicepowerauthorityconferreduponlocalgovernmenttoregulatetheuseofland.
Thestudysummarizedsixissuesthatre-curredthroughoutthenineprincipal2andsevensecondary3state*FAICP;BenjaminA.
KudoProfessorofLaw,WilliamS.
RichardsonSchoolofLaw,UniversityofHawaii;J.
D.
,U.
Michigan;LL.
M.
,U.
Nottingham.
TheauthorgratefullyacknowledgesthehelpfulcommentsbyDanMandelkerandtheresearchassistanceofHeidiGuth,a2002graduateoftheWilliamS.
RichardsonSchoolofLaw.
1.
FREDBOSSELMAN&DAVIDL.
CALLIES,THEQUIETREVOLUTIONINLANDUSECONTROL1(1971).
2.
Hawaii,Vermont,SanFranciscoBay,TwinCities,Massachusetts(twice),Maine,Wisconsin,andtheNewEnglandRiverBasin.
3.
AlaskaJointState-FederalNaturalResourcesandLandUsePlanningCom-mission,TahoeRegionalPlanningAgency,HackensackMeadowlandsDevelopmentCommission,AdirondackParkAgency,DelawareCoastalZoneAct,ColoradoLandUseAct,andtheWashingtonLandPlanningCommission.
2771PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWlanduseregimesuponwhichthestudyreported.
Thesewere:41.
Anewconceptofland;2.
Anewroleforthestate;3.
Areducedroleforlocalgovernment;4.
Abalancingofplanningandregulation;5.
Constitutionallimitsonregulation;and6.
Choiceofstateagency.
Muchhaschangedsince1970,5whentheresearchforTheQuietRevolutionfinished.
First,localgovernmentshavevastlyimprovedtheirplanningprocessesinmanypartsofthecountry;therationaleforpreservinglandhaschangedinsomestates.
Sec-ond,thelegallandscapeforchallenginglandusecontrolsoncon-stitutionalgroundshasshiftedconsiderably.
AtthetimeofourQuietRevolutionstudy,federalcourtshaddeclinedtosomuchasentertainaregulatorytakingchallengeinnearlyhalfacentury,sinceJusticeHolmespennedhisfamouslanguageaboutthecon-stitutionalimproprietyofaregulationthatwent"toofar.
"6Statecourts,whichheardsuchchallengesuniformly,foundexceptionstothe"toofar"federalregulatorytakingsrule,sothatbythemid-1970s,therulewasvirtuallymoribund.
7Today,however,thecon-stitutionalityoflandusecontrolsthatstripalandownerofalleco-nomicallybeneficialuseoflandisquestionablefollowingnearlyadozenU.
S.
SupremeCourtcasesonperseandpartialregulatorytakings,andunconstitutionallanddevelopmentregulations,manyofwhichinvolvestate-widelanddevelopmentregulations.
Itistherefore,worthalooknotonlyathowselectedcities,vil-lages,counties,andotherlocalgovernmentsarecopingwithlanduseissues,butalsoatthenewjudicialclimate,toseewhathaschanged.
4.
BOSSELMAN&CALLIES,supranote1,at314-26.
5.
ForarecentsummaryofstateprogramsseeROBERTH.
FREILICH,FROMSPRAWLTOSMARTGROWTH:SUCCESSFULLEGAL,PLANNING,ANDENVIRONMENTALSYS-TEMS209-52(1999).
6.
Pa.
CoalCo.
v.
Mahon,260U.
S.
393,415(1922).
7.
FREDBOSSELMANETAL.
,THETAKINGISSUEchs.
1-4,9,16(1973).
278[Vol.
202https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXII.
QuietRevolutionCountry:HaveThingsChangedASelectiveLook.
A.
Honolulu,Hawaii,Where"ItAllBegan"HawaiiwasthecenterpieceofTheQuietRevolution,where"itallbegan.
""Hawaiipasseditsbellwether(butnottrend-setting)statewidelanduselawdividingallthelandinthestateintofourdistricts(agriculture,conservation,urban,andrural)in1961.
9Thelawgaveastateadministrativeagency,theLandUseCom-mission("LUC"),basicauthorityoverlanddevelopmentpat-terns10byleavingittotheLUCtomakethebasicdecisionsaboutwhetherlandshouldbedeveloped(urbanzone),"conservedaswatershedsandsoforth(conservation)12orusedprincipallyforagriculture(agriculture).
13Thepurposeofthelawwasprimarilytoprotectagriculturelands,usedprimarilyforlargesugarandpineappleplantations,fromurbansprawl.
14TheLUCstillfulfillsthisrole,andthepercentageoflandineachclassificationhaschangedalmostimperceptiblyoverthepastthirtyyears,withthevastmajorityofthestate'slandevenlysplitbetweentheconserva-tionzone(48%)andtheagriculturezone(48%).
15Indeed,alookatthelandusemapsinOahu,formallytheCityandCountyofHonolulu-themostheavilypopulated(byfar)ofthestate'sfourmajorislandcounties--clearlydemonstratesthatlanddevelop-mentpatternshaveremainedlargelythesame.
Therehasbeenincrementalgrowthinexistingurbanareas,withtheexceptionofthenew"secondcity"ofKapolei,sproutingwestofPearlHarboronformerplantationagriculturalland.
16Muchofthewatershedremainsintheconservationdistrictunderthecontrolofanotherstateagency,theDepartmentofLandandNaturalResources,17whoseLandBoarddividesthatsubstantialacreageintoaseriesofsubzonesandpermitsverylimited(usuallysingle-familyhomes8.
BOSSELMAN&CALLIES,supranote1,at5.
9.
HAw.
REV.
STAT.
§205-2(a)(2001).
10.
Id.
§205-1.
11.
Id.
§205-2(a)(1).
12.
Id.
§205-2(e).
13.
Id.
§205-2(a)(3).
14.
Seeid.
§205-2(a)(3).
15.
SeeDAVIDL.
CALLIESETAL.
,CASESANDMATERIALSONLANDUSE690(3ded.
1999).
16.
SeegenerallyKapolei,Hawaii,availableathttp://www.
kapolei.
com/home.
html(describingthelocationandplansforthearea,withcurrentandfuturemaps)(lastvisitedJune3,2002).
17.
SeeHAw.
REV.
STAT.
§205-5(a)(2001);HAw.
REV.
STAT.
§183-31(2000).
200213PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWonlargetracts)useinonlyone,theso-called"general"subzone(althoughinthepasttheBoardhaspermittedbothagolfcourseandacollegecampusonconservationland).
'8Whilethestate'sfourcounties(ithasnocities,villagesoranyotherunitsoflocalgovernment)sharethepoweroverlanduseintheagriculturezone(amatterofsomecontention,asappearsbelow),itisonlyintheurbanzone19-lessthan4%ofthestate'slandarea-thatthecoun-tiesactfreeoftheLUC'sauthorityandcontrol.
WhileitisarguablethattheLUChasfulfilleditsstatutorypurpose,manyquestionwhetherithasnotserveditspurposeandshouldbeeliminated.
20Thisisforseveralreasons.
First,thereisvirtuallynosignificantplantationagricultureremaininginthestate.
21Onlyasinglemajorisland,Oahu,hassignificantacreageinsuchlarge-scaleagriculture-pineapple-andonlytwosugarplantationsremain,oneonKauaiandtheotheronMaui.
22Theagriculturezonehasthereforebecomelargelyanopenspacehold-ingzoneincreasinglyvulnerabletoattackunderLucasv.
SouthCarolinaCoastalCouncil23asatakingofpropertybecausethereisnoeconomicallybeneficialusepermittedonmuchofthelandsoclassified.
24Whatlimited,relativelylarge-lotresidentialdevelop-mentispermittedinthezoneisjustthat-limited,usuallytohigh-endresidentialdevelopment.
Eventhatisunderattackbymanywhowouldliketopreservethelandandchallengethecom-moncountyperceptionthatresidentialusedivorcedfrom"real"agriculturalproductionisinfactapermissibleuseinanagricul-turaldistrict.
25Golfcoursesareapermitteduseonmuchoftheland,eitherbyrightorasaspecialuseonprimeagriculturalland,26butwithwelloverfiftygolfcoursesinthestateandtour-18.
DAVIDL.
CALLIES,PRESERVINGPARADISE:WHYREGULATIONWON'TWORK19-20(1994).
19.
HAw.
REV.
STAT.
§205-2(b)(2001).
20.
CALLIESETAL,supranote15,at691.
21.
SeeCALLIES,supranote18,at12.
22.
SeeAnthonySommer,FinalHarvestforSugarFields,THEHONOLULUSTARBULLETIN,Nov.
16,2000,availableathttp://starbulletin.
com/2000/11/16/news/story3.
html.
23.
505U.
S.
1003(1992).
24.
Seeid.
25.
TestimonyofChristopherYuen,PlanningDirectoroftheCountyofHawaii,InreAppealofContinentalProperties(ZoningBoardofAppealsNov.
9,2001)(onfilewithauthor).
26.
HAw.
REV.
STAT.
§205-2(d)(2001).
280[Vol.
204https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXisminalongslump,themarketforsuchcoursesisinthemainsaturated.
27TheconservationdistrictisthesecondofthetwolargelandclassificationsbythestateLUC.
Itconsistsofbothpublicandpri-vateland(someestimatethatasmuchashalfisprivate)andamountstonearlyhalfthelandareaofthestate.
28ControlledexclusivelybytheboardofdirectorsoftheDepartmentofLandandNaturalResources(DLNR),thedistrictoriginallyconsistedprimarilyofforestandwaterreservezones(initiallynamedandestablishedassuch29)andlandsforthepreservationofhistoricandscenicareas.
Theselandsareusedforconservingwildlife,providingparklands,wildernessandbeachreserves,preventingfloods,andas"openspaceareaswhoseexistingopenness,naturalcondition,orpresentstateofuse,ifretained,wouldenhancethepresentorpotentialvalueofabuttingorsurroundingcommuni-ties,orwouldmaintainorenhancetheconservationofnaturalorscenicresources.
'30TheconservationdistrictisregulatedbythegoverningBoardofLandandNaturalResources(BLNRorLandBoard)oftheDLNR.
TheLandBoardhas,byadministrativerule,dividedtheconservationdistrictintofourso-called"subzones"andpermitsvariouslandusesineach,allasauthorizedbystatute.
31Alsobystatute,theseusesmayincludenotonlyfarmingandtheopera-tionofnurseriesandorchards,butalso"recreationalpursuits"andresidentialuses.
32Therearecurrentlyfoursubzones:pro-tected,limited,resource,andgeneral.
RegulationspromulgatedbytheLandBoardsetouttheusespermittedineach.
33Thefirsttwosubzonesaremoreorlessself-descriptive.
Theprotectedsub-zoneistoprotectvaluableresourcesinsuchdesignatedareasasrestrictedwatershed,marine,plant,andwildlifesanctuaries;sig-nificanthistorical,archaeological,geological,andvolcanologicalfeaturesandsites;andotheruniqueareas.
Theprimarypermit-27.
OFFICEOFSTATEPLANNING,GOLFCOURSEDEVELOPMENTINHAWAII:IMPACTSANDPOLICYRECOMMENDATIONS3(1992).
28.
DAVIDL.
CALLIES,REGULATINGPARADISE:LANDUSECONTROLSINHAWAII9(1984);MadalynPurcell,ResidentialUseofHawaii'sConservationDistricts,14U.
HAW.
L.
REV.
633(1992).
29.
HAW.
REV.
STAT.
§183-41(asmodifiedbyamendmentstoHAW.
REV.
STAT.
§205-2).
30.
Id.
§205-2(e).
31.
Id.
§205-2.
32.
Id.
33.
HAW.
ADMIN.
RULES§13-5-10to25;seealsoCALLIES,REGULATINGPARADISE,supranote28,at9.
200215PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWtedusesinaprotectedsubzoneareresearch,education,andsomerecreation,aslongasnopermanentfacilitiesarecontemplated.
Thelimitedsubzoneisforareasinwhichnaturalconditionsre-stricthumanactivity(40percentslopes,flooding,volcanicactiv-ity),withtimberharvestingandfloodcontroladded.
Theresourcesubzoneaddsaquaculturetothelistofpermitteduses.
Thegen-eralsubzoneaddsverylittlemore"ofright":watercollectionandstorage,andtransmissionfacilities.
Onlyinspecialsubzonesandbymeansofconditionalpermits,variances,andnonconformitiesareeconomicusesbesidesagriculture,forestry,andaquaculturepermitted.
Thecapacityofthefourcountiesforeffectivelandusecontrolhasincreasedsignificantly,andaseachsuchlocalgovernmenthasregionaljurisdictionwhichstops,ifatall,attheocean(twocountieshavejurisdictionoverotherthantheirmainislandbase),thecontinuedutilityofastatewidebodyoverseeingsuchlandusedecisions-atleastforthereasonsoriginallyarticulated-isweak.
34Thus,allthreeoftheso-called"neighborisland"counties(Kauai,MauiandHawaii)haveseparateandwell-staffedplan-ningdepartmentsaswellassophisticatedgeneralandarea-spe-cificplanswithastronganddetailedlandusecomponent.
35Oahuhas,foratleasttwenty-fiveyears,usedacomprehensiveandlengthylanduseordinancetocontroltheuseofland,whichbychartermustconformtobothgeneralandarea-specificdevelop-mentplans.
36Thelatterwereoncesospecificastoresemblezon-ingordinancesintheirownright,completewithnearlyadozendistrictclassificationsmappedatamicroscaledowntothestreetandblocklevel.
37What,then,istheneedforoverseeingstateagenciestosecond-guesstheirregionallanduseplanningandreg-ulatorydecisionsB.
Portland,OregonOregon,attheforefrontoftheSmartGrowthmovement,mandatedin1975thatlocalgovernmentsmustcontrolurbansprawlandprotectopenspace.
38Thegeneralstrategyinvolvedcreatingboundariesbeyondwhichurbangrowthcouldnotextend,34.
CALLIESET.
AL.
,supranote15,at690-91.
35.
Id.
36.
CALLIES,supranote18,at24.
37.
CALLIESET.
AL.
,supranote15,at690-91.
38.
OR.
REV.
STAT.
§§197.
005-.
860(1999).
282[Vol.
206https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXthuscompactingdevelopmentandprotectingruralareas.
39Thecomprehensivestateplanrequiredeachcityandcountytocreateandimplementitsownplansincompliancewiththestate'snineteengoals,andestablishedaseven-memberLandandDevel-opmentCommission(LDC)tooverseeconformityoflocalgovern-ments'plansandlandusecontrols.
40Ifthelocalgovernmentplanscomply,theLDC"acknowledges"theplans,andiftheydonot,thereisgenerallytimeforadjustments.
41IftheLDCdoesnotacknowledgealocalplan(whichhasnotyethappened),thelocalplanningdecisionsmustbebasedonthestatewidegoals.
42Uponacknowledgement,thelocalplansandregulationsareimple-mentedequally,andtherebybindstateagencies.
43Concurrentwiththelegislationandenactmentofthestate-widelanduseplan,theOregonSupremeCourtdecidedthatlocalzoningordinancesmaybemorerestrictive,butnotless,thanthecomprehensiveplanforacertainregion.
44TheOregonSupremeCourtalsofoundpassageofstatewidelanduseplans,whichmeantthatalllanduseandzoninglawsmustcomplywiththestate'slegislatedgoals.
45Forexample,Portland'sUrbanGrowthBoundaryProgram(UGB)providesthatPortlandresidentselectaregionalgovern-mentcalledtheMetropolitanServiceDistrict(Metro)thatregu-lateslanduseanddevelopmentintwenty-fouradjoiningcitiesandthreecounties.
46MostnewconstructionisdeniedbeyondtheUrbanGrowthBoundary,whichfollowsatwenty-minuteradiusfromdowntownPortland.
47Metrohasdeniedbuildingpermission39.
Seeid.
§§197.
005,197.
010.
40.
Seeid.
§197.
075.
41.
Id.
§197.
040.
42.
Seeid.
§197.
180.
43.
Seeid.
44.
Fasanov.
Bd.
ofCountyComm'rs,507P.
2d23(Or.
1973)(findingthatal-thoughacountyplanningcommissionmayreviseacomprehensiveplantokeepupwiththetimes,changesmustonlybemadewhenadequatelyjustifiedandwhentheyareconsistentwiththecharacteroftheareaandwiththeoriginalobjectivesoftheplan);Bakerv.
CityofMilwaukee,533P.
2d772,779(Or.
1975)(holdingthatthecomprehensiveplanmaybechangedaccordingtoacommunity'sneeds,butthezon-ingordinancesmustcomplyandconformwiththeplan);seealsoMarracciv.
CityofScappoose,552P.
2d552,553(Or.
Ct.
App.
1976)(holdingthatacomprehensiveplansetsthemaximum,butnottheminimumlanduseintensity;thelattermaybesetbyzoningordinances).
45.
Folandv.
JacksonCounty,807P.
2d801,803(Or.
1991).
46.
SeeBernardH.
Siegan,SmartGrowthandOtherInfirmitiesofLandUseCon-trols,38SANDIEGOL.
REV.
693,717(2001).
47.
Seeid.
at717-18.
2002]2837PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWtoconglomeratessuchasWal-MartandHomeDepot,48aswellasbeguneffortstoreducemaximumlotsizesforsingle-familyhomes,49promotehigh-riseconstruction,andreduceindividualautomobiletraffic.
50Aproblemwithdecidingwheretobuildandatwhatdensityinvolvesbalancingoutcomes.
51Low-densityde-velopmentinsidetheboundariespromotesrequestsforUGBex-tensions,whilehigherdensitydevelopmentinsidetheboundarydrivesupprices,andforceslow-incomehousingtotheedges.
52TheMetro2040GrowthConcept,anefforttobalancetheopposingdevelopmentpressures,supplementsthestategoals.
53Metro2040requireslocalgovernmentstomeethousingcapacitystan-dardsandgivesfirstprioritytoboundaryexpansionsthatprovidethemostefficientandeffectiveurbanservices.
54Portland'shous-ingpricescontinuetoclimb,andthecityisoneofthestate'smostexpensive,whichcanbeseenaseitheradetrimenttothosewholivethereorasatestamentthattheplanworksbecausesomanypeoplewanttolivethere.
55Landusedisputesfromlocal,regional,andstatelevelsgobeforetheLandUseBoardofAppeals(LUBA).
56ManyofthesedisputesoriginateinthePortlandarea,andmostofthedecisionshavecomedownonthesideoftheMetroandformanaged,notstunted,growth.
57Aslongasthelanduseconformswithcurrent48.
Seeid.
at718.
49.
SeeMetro,RegionalAffordableHousing,athttp://www.
metro-region.
org/growth/tfplanaffordable.
html(lastupdatedMay31,2001).
50.
SeeMetro,2040ConceptsforGrowth:TransportationElement,athttp://www.
metro-region.
org/transpo/growthlink/transgrowthlink.
html(lastupdatedDec.
15,1999);seealsoPORTLAND,OR.
METRO.
CODE§3.
01.
010(e)(1993).
51.
SeeDanielR.
Mandelker,ManagingSpacetoManageGrowth,23WM.
&MARYENVT'L.
L.
&POL'YREV.
801,816(1999).
52.
Id.
53.
Id.
at816-17.
54.
Id.
at817;seealsoPORTLAND,OR.
METRO.
CODE§§3.
01.
010(e)(1),(2).
55.
SeeSIEGAN,supranote46,at718-19,56.
OR.
REV.
STAT.
§197.
825(1999).
57.
See,e.
g.
,HomeBuildersAss'nofMetro.
Portlandv.
PortlandMetro.
AreaLo-calGov'tBoundaryComm'n,4OR.
LUBA245,247-52(1981)(upholdingtheMetro'sdenialofalandannexationpetitionbecauseofalackofschoolfacilities);Atwoodv.
CityofPortland,2OR.
LUBA397,403-04(1981)(denyingarequesttoreverseazon-ingchangethatallowedfora31-unitapartmentbecausethechangemetgoalsforencouragingresidentialinfillinareaswithadequatefacilitysupport);Tichyv.
Port-landCityCouncil,6OR.
LUBA13,24(1982)(upholdingazoningchangethatmetthecomprehensiveplan'sgoalforthearea);CityofWilsonvillev.
Metro.
Serv.
Dist.
,15OR.
LUBA44,48-53(1986)(affirmingadenialofannexationof46ruralacreswithintheMetroUGBbecausethelandwouldnotbeanefficientuseofland);andBenjFranDev.
,Inc.
v.
Metro.
Serv.
Dist.
,15OR.
LUBA319,321-29(1987)(upholdingdenialofrequestformajoramendmenttoUGB).
284[Vol.
208https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/1220021THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUX285zoningregulations,landwithintheUGBisavailableforcon-trolledgrowth,whilefromLUBA'sperspective,landoutsidetheUGBshouldasremainingruralandessentiallyundeveloped.
58Theboundarylineremainsrelativelyinflexible,unlessitisfoundtomeetstatewidegoalrequirements.
59Recently,forexam-ple,thestateappellatecourtupheldaLUBAdecisiontoadd354congruentacrestotheMetroUGBbothbecausestatelawrequiresMetrotoensureenough"urbanizable"landfortwentyyearsofresidentialbuilding,andbecausemostofthelandaddedhadbeendesignatedasnextinprioritytobeincludedintheMetroarea.
60OneofthefewLUBAcasesinvolvingMetrothattheOregonCourtofAppealshasnotaffirmedwasoneinwhichMetrotriedtocom-plywiththerequirementofprovidingenoughresidentiallandforthefuture,expandingtheUGBsolelyinonesub-region,withoutconsideringtheentireregion'sneedorexplainingwhytheparticu-larsub-regionneededasmuchas830additionalacres.
61Theap-pellatecourthasfoundadistinctneedforconsistencybetweenMetro'splanningdocumentsontheregionalandlocallevel(re-gionalfunctionalplanandanurbangrowthreport)whendecidingwhethertoexpandtheUGB.
62OnNovember7,2000,Oregonianspassed,byfifty-fourper-centofthevote,aballotmeasurecallingforaconstitutionalamendmentthatwouldrequirestateandlocalgovernmentcom-pensationtolandownerswhosepropertyvalueswerereducedbe-58.
SeeMANDELKER,supranote51,at814.
59.
ThesestatewidegoalrequirementscauselocalgovernmentstoapplythesevenfollowingfactorsindeterminingthesizeoftheUGB:1.
Demonstratedneedtoaccommodatelong-rangeurbanpopulationgrowthrequirementsconsistentwith[LandConservationandDevel-opmentCommission]goals;2.
Needforhousing,employmentopportunities,andlivability;3.
Orderlyandeconomicprovisionforpublicfacilitiesandservices;4.
Maximumefficiencyoflanduseswithinandonthefringeoftheex-istingurbanarea;5.
Environmental,energy,economicandsocialconsequences;6.
Retentionofagriculturallandasdefined,withClassIbeingthehigh-estpriorityforretentionandClassVIthelowestpriority;and7.
Compatibilityoftheproposedurbanuseswithnearbyagriculturalactivities.
DEPARTMENTOFLANDCONSERVATION&DEVELOPMENT,OREGON'SSTATEWIDEPLAN-NINGGOALSANDGUIDELINES(1995).
60.
CitizensAgainstIrresponsibleGrowthv.
Metro,38P.
3d956(Or.
Ct.
App.
2002).
61.
ResidentsofRosemontv.
Metro,21P.
3d1108(Or.
Ct.
App.
2001).
62.
See1,000FriendsofOregonv.
Metro,26P.
3d151(Or.
Ct.
App.
2001).
9PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWcauseoflandregulationsanddevelopmentrestrictions.
63Themeasuresetsnopaymentlimitsandwouldrequirecompensationforpropertyvaluelossandforcostsincurredinrequiredenviron-mental,historical,archaeological,culturalorlowincomehousingpreservation.
64Thefollowingmonth,whenthemeasurewastotakeeffect,atrialcourtissuedatemporaryinjunctionpreventingthemeasurefromtakingaffect.
InFebruary2000,thecourtstruckdownthemeasureinaconsolidatedcaseonstateconstitu-tionalgroundsbecausetheinitiativedidnotincludeallthelan-guageinthefinalmeasure,andthemeasurecontainedseveraldifferentprovisionsthatshouldhavebeenvoteduponsepa-rately.
65InMarch2000,thecourtdeclaredthatthemeasurewasnotpartoftheconstitution,andauthorsofthemeasureappealedtotheOregonSupremeCourt,withoralargumentsheardonSep-tember11,2001,andadecisionexpectedinmid-2002.
66C.
FloridaFromthelate1960sthroughtheearly1970s,Floridabeganenactingstatutestomanage,distributeandcontrolgrowth,partlyinanefforttopreservenaturalresourcesthathadbeendamagedordestroyedinpreviousdecades:67FloridaAirandWaterPollu-tionControlAct(1967),68CountyandMunicipalPlanningforFu-tureDevelopmentAct(1969),69BeachandShorePreservationAct(1971),70FloridaEnvironmentalLandandWaterManagementAct(1972),71FloridaWaterResourcesAct(1972),72FloridaStateComprehensivePlanningAct(1972),73andLandConservationAct(1972).
74Theseconservationactsprovidedafoundationforthe63.
Measure7,amendingOR.
CONST.
art.
I,§18byaddingsixsubsections.
64.
SeeMeasure7,§(e).
65.
McCallv.
Kitzhaber,No.
00C19871,slip.
op.
at10,18(Or.
Cir.
Ct.
Feb.
22,2001);LeagueofOr.
Citiesv.
Oregon,No.
00C20156,slip.
op.
at10,18(Or.
Cir.
Ct.
Feb.
22,2001).
66.
SeeHunnicuttv.
Myers,39P.
3d190,191-92(Or.
2002);seealsoDavidSteves,CourtWeighsPropertyCompensationCase,REGISTER-GUARD,Sept.
11,2001,availa-bleathttp://www.
registerguard.
com/news/20010911/ld.
cr.
measure7.
0911.
html(lastvisitedApr.
14,2002).
67.
SeeJamesC.
Nicholas&RuthL.
Steiner,GrowthManagementandSmartGrowthinFlorida,35WAxEFORESTL.
REV.
645,650(2000).
68.
Id.
at650(citingFLA.
STAT.
ch.
403.
011(1999).
69.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
163.
3161(2001).
70.
Id.
ch.
161.
011.
71.
Id.
ch.
380.
012.
72.
Id.
ch.
373.
013.
73.
Id.
ch.
186.
001.
74.
Id.
ch.
259.
01.
[Vol.
2028610https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXplanningactsofthelate1970sand1980s:75LocalGovernmentComprehensivePlanningandLandDevelopmentRegulationAct(1975),76StateComprehensivePlan(1985),77andGrowthMan-agementActof1985.
78Together,thislegislationformedaplan-ningsystemfortherapidlydevelopingcoastalstate.
UnderFlorida'sEnvironmentalLandandWaterManage-mentAct(1972)79thestatebegandesignatingareasofcriticalstateconcern.
80Therearenowfivesuchareas:theBigCyprusConservationAct(1973),81theGreenSwampArea(1974),82theFloridaKeysAreaProtectionAct(1976),83theCityofKeyWest(1976),84andtheApalachicolaBayAreaProtectionAct(1979).
85Localgovernmentsandpropertyownersfoughtthesedesigna-tions,particularlyintheFloridaKeys.
86Localgovernmentsper-ceivedthedesignationsasusurpingtheirauthorityandquestioningtheirabilities.
87Propertyownersviewedthedesigna-tionsastakingsomeoralloftheirpropertyanddevelopmentrights.
88AlthoughFlorida'sSupremeCourtupheldboththestate-designatedareasofcriticalconcern89andregionalmanage-mentofdevelopments,90localgovernmentscontinuedtobalkatcriticalareadesignation.
91Inresponse,thestatecreatedanalternative:ResourcePlan-ningandManagementCommittees(RPMCs).
92Localgovern-mentsseemedtopreferthismethod,whichincorporatedelectedofficialsandpropertyownersintothedecidingcommittees.
93Forexample,RPMCscreated"mutuallyacceptabledevelopmentregu-lationsforCharlotteHarbor,HutchinsonIsland,andtheSuwan-75.
SeeNicholas&Steiner,supranote67,at650.
76.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
163.
3161(2001).
77.
Id.
ch.
187.
101.
78.
1985Fla.
Lawsch.
85-55.
79.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
380.
012(2001).
80.
Id.
81.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
380.
055.
82.
Id.
ch.
380.
0551.
83.
Id.
ch.
380.
0552.
84.
Seeid.
85.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
380.
0555(2001).
86.
SeeJamesC.
Nicholas&CarolCrawford,TheFloridaKeys:ACaseStudyofCriticalAreaDesignation,FLA.
ENVTL.
&URB.
ISSUES,June1976,at12.
87.
Id.
88.
Id.
89.
Askewv.
CrossKeyWaterways,372So.
2d913(Fla.
1978).
90.
Grahamv.
EstuaryProps.
,Inc.
,399So.
2d1374(Fla.
1981).
91.
SeeNicholas&Crawford,supranote86,at12.
92.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
380.
045(2001).
93.
SeeNicholas&Steiner,supranote67,at654.
2002]11PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWneeRiver.
'94Thisprocess,althoughlesscontentious,isalsonolongerused.
95Bothitandthedesignationprocessremainonthebooks,however.
96RegionalPlanningCouncilsreviewdevelopmentswithre-gionalimpact(beyondonecounty).
97Applicationsforregionalim-pactdevelopments(DRIs)arelengthyandexpensive.
98Theprocessaveragestwoyearsandcostsmillionsofdollarsbecausethedevelopmentmustbeapprovedbylocal,regional,andstateagencies.
99Perhapsbecauseofallthenegotiationsatthebegin-ningoftheprocess,'00however,mostDRIsareapproved,wellplanned,andenvironmentallysavvy.
11Theextensiveapprovalprocessalsovestsmanydevelopmentrights.
'02Recentenviron-mentalcomplaints,however,centerontheabilityofmanytrans-portationandfuelcompaniestoavoidthereview.
'03TheFloridaStateandRegionalPlanningActof1984man-datedthestatetocreateacomprehensivestatedevelopmentplanandtoassurethateachoftheelevenplanningregionsbeconsis-tentwiththatstateplan.
104The1985amendmentsthenrequiredlocalgovernmentstocreateandimplementdetaileddevelopmentplansthatcompliedwiththestateandregionalplans.
'05Thisla-boriousplanningprocessissodetailedthatitevenincludesre-quirementsforservicestobeincludedinanydevelopmentplansatthelocallevel.
106Thestatepaysformuchoftherequiredinfra-structure,providedthatthelocalplansmanagegrowthproperlyandthatdevelopmentoccursinareasalreadyservedbystateinfrastructure.
07.
94.
Id.
95.
Id.
at654.
96.
Id.
at655.
97.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
380.
06(1)(2001).
98.
SeeNicholas&Steiner,supranote67,at655.
99.
Id.
100.
Id.
at655n.
100.
101.
Seeid.
at656.
102.
SeeFLA.
STAT.
ch.
380.
06(26)(2001).
103.
SeeLeonCountyv.
Dep'tofCmty.
Affairs,666So.
2d1003(Fla.
Dist.
Ct.
App.
1996)(interpretingtheDRIstatutenarrowlytoincludeonlythosedevelopmentslistedwithinthestatute,eventhoughthesubject22-milepetroleumpipeline(notpartofthestatute)projectincludedastoragefacility(partofthestatute),becausethefacilitywouldholdtwopercentlessthanthestatuterequiredforreview);ChristopherC.
Sanders,EnvironmentalLaw,26STETSONL.
REV.
971(1997).
104.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
186.
001-.
901.
105.
Seeid.
chs.
163.
3161-.
3215.
106.
Id.
ch.
163.
3161(3).
107.
Id.
ch.
163.
3177(10)(h).
288[Vol.
2012https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXFlorida'sunderlyingconcurrencypremiseisthattherequiredinfrastructurefordevelopmentsbeinplacebeforetheimpactsofthedevelopmentoccur.
108ThisisexemplifiedbyFlorida'strans-portationmanagementsystem,whichbeganinthe1990soutoftherealizationthattransportationinfrastructurewasfallingfarbehindpopulationgrowth.
109Toconfineurbandevelopmentwithinspecifiedareas,TransportationConcurrencyManagementAreaspromoteredevelopmentofexistingroadnetworkstoprovidemoreefficientpublicandprivatetransitinurbanareas.
110Com-munityrevitalizationnotonlymanagesgrowth,butalsosavestimeandmoney.
Thus,in1999,amendmentstotheGrowthMan-agementActallowfortransportationconcurrencyexceptionsiftheprojectprovidesonlyforurbanredevelopment,andnotexpan-sion;developsmulti-optiontransportationdistricts;exemptspub-lictransportfromconcurrencyrequirements;andprovidesforexemptionsifthedevelopercontributesproportionatefundsforthetrafficimpacts.
"'GrowthmanagementremainsaworkinprogressinFlorida.
Lastyear,aFloridaappellatecourtwroteoneofthestrongestaf-firmationsofacomprehensivelanduseplan;"12buttheyearbefore,Florida'sgovernorexpresseddissatisfactionwiththestateplan.
113GovernorJebBushcreatedaGovernor'sGrowthMan-agementStudyCommissioninJuly2000,whichheldpublichear-ingsineightcitiesspanningthestatetryingtofindwaysaroundwhathasbecome"amorecomplicated,morecostlyprocess"thathasnotfulfilleditspromise.
14Withanexpectedpopulationin-creaseoffiftypercentinthenextthirtyyears,thecommissionsoughttodevelopideasforbettergrowthmanagement,infrastruc-turepreparation,andresourcepreservation.
"15Thecommission's108.
SeeStevenM.
Seibert,GrowthManagementPrograms:AComparisonofSe-lectedStates11,availableathttp://www.
dca.
state.
fl.
us/growth/(lastvisitedOct.
2002)109.
SeeNicholas&Steiner,supranote67,at667-69.
110.
FLA.
STAT.
ch.
163.
3180(7)(2001).
111.
Seeid.
ch.
163.
3180.
112.
SeePinecrestLakes,Inc.
v.
Shidel,795So.
2d191(Fla.
Dist.
Ct.
App.
2001)(upholdingthelowercourt'sordertodemolishandremoveseveralmulti-storybuild-ingsinconsistentwiththecounty'slanduseplan,findingthatcountyconsistencywiththestate-mandatedcomprehensiveplanswasnotdiscretionary).
113.
SeeFla.
Exec.
OrderNo.
2000-196(July3,2000),availableathttp://www.
dca.
state.
fl.
us/growth/pdf/Executive%200rder.
pdf(lastvisitedJuly3,2000).
114.
FLORIDA'SGROWTHMANAGEMENTSTUDYCOMMISSION,ALIVEABLEFLORIDAFORTODAYANDTOMORROW,FINALREPORT11(2001),availableathttp://www.
floridagrowth.
org/pdf/gmsc.
pdf(lastvisitedOct.
2002).
115.
Id.
at13-15.
2892002113PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWfinalreportpresentedeighty-ninerecommendationsforchangetothe2001Legislature,focusingonsimplifyingplanningregulationproceduresandgivingthestateamoresupportive,ratherthansupervisory,roleoverlocalgovernments.
116TheeightcoregoalsincludedsuchspecificsasusingregionalagreementstophaseouttheDRIprocessby2003,117requiringlocalgovernmentstocreatepublicschoolfacilitiesconcurrentwithplannedgrowth,118andcreatingincentivesforurbanrevitalization19andruralrestoration.
120Despitetheserecommendations,therewaslittleprogressinthe2001Legislature.
The2002Legislaturehastwogrowthman-agementbillsbeforeit:onerequiringpubliceducationfacilitiesforalocalcomprehensiveplan,121andanotherthataddressesDRIreform,andwatersupplyandeducationalplanningconcur-rence.
122TheproposedDRIreformincludesexemptingairportconstructionandpetroleumtankfarmsfromthecompletereviewprocess.
123WhatstandsoutinFloridaandOregonisthecruciallinkbe-tweenlocalandregionallandusecontrols,withtheclearempha-sisonlocalcontrolsasthe"cuttingedge.
"LocallandusecontrolshavenotwitheredawayinHawaii,FloridaorOregon.
Theyhave,infact,growninimportanceandsophistication.
Givenwhatthefederalcourts-andinparticulartheU.
S.
SupremeCourt-havedonesincere-enteringthelandusefield,itisagoodthinglocallandusecontrolshavegrown,asdiscussedinPartIIIbelow.
III.
RegulatoryTaking:MoribundNoLongerRecallthatbytheearly1970sstateinterpretationofregula-torytakinghadvirtuallyerodedthedoctrineintoinsignifi-cance.
124Indeed,onereportwhichfollowedharduponTheQuiet116.
Seeid.
at19-46.
117.
Id.
at32.
118.
Id.
at37.
119.
FLORIDA'SGROWTHMANAGEMENTSTUDYCOMMISSION,supra,note114,at37-41.
120.
Id.
at43-46.
121.
H.
R.
269,2001Leg.
(Fla.
2001).
122.
S.
382,2001Leg.
(Fla.
2001).
123.
Seeid.
124.
See,e.
g.
,SteelHillDev.
,Inc.
v.
TownofSanbornton,469F.
2d956,962-63(1stCir.
1972)(forestconservationdistricts);CandlestickProps.
,Inc.
v.
S.
F.
BayConser-vation&Dev.
Comm'n,89Cal.
Rptr.
897,906(Cal.
Ct.
App.
1970)(shorelines);Maherv.
CityofNewOrleans,235So.
2d402,405-06(La.
1970)(historicpreservation);InreSpringValleyDev.
,300A.
2d736,754(Me.
1973)(pondshore);PotomacSand&290[Vol.
2014https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXRevolutioninLandUseControlsanddesignedtoallayfearsthattherevolutionarystatelawswouldleadtosuccessfulconstitu-tionalchallenges,arguedforcefullyfortheoverrulingofPenn-sylvaniaCoalCo.
v.
Mahon,125thegenesisforregulatorytakingjurisprudence,onjustsuchgrounds.
126However,commencingwithPennCentralTransportationCo.
v.
CityofNewYork127in1978,theCourtcommencedare-examinationofthetakingissueresultinginatleasttwodistinctanalyticalrulesbywhichtojudgewhenaregulationgoes"toofar.
"Theserulesformthebasisoftoday'sregulatorytakingjurisprudence,resultinginavulnerabil-ityofstateandregionalregulationstopreserveagriculturalland,openspaceandnaturalresources-keygoalsofstateandregionalQuietRevolutionlaws-whichwasabsentfromthelegalland-scapewhenstategovernmentpassedsuchlawsinthe1960sandearly1970s.
Asapreliminarymatter,recallthatthelawoftakingsisdi-videdintotwoprincipalparts:physicalandregulatory.
28Inthefirstcategoryisthatwhichwecalleminentdomainorcompulsorypurchase.
Suchtakingsoccurwhengovernmentintendstotakelandoraninterestinland,forsomepublicuseorpurpose.
Asidefromthatpublicuseorpurposelimitation,governmentmayphys-icallytakeanylandorinterestinlandthatitwants-thereasonisotherwiseirrelevant-solongasitpaysthelandownerthejustcompensationrequiredundertheU.
S.
Constitution'sFifthAmendment.
129Nomatterhowminutethetaking-evenifitissolittleastheinstallationofwiresonaprivatebuilding'30-thegov-ernmentmustpaycompensation.
Asweshallseebelow,theseel-ementsareimportantwithrespecttooneofthetwopost-QuietRevolutionregulatoryrulesfromtheSupremeCourt.
Thesecondcategoryoftakingsis,ofcourse,regulatorytakingwhichtracesitsGravelCo.
v.
GovernorofMd.
,293A.
2d241,252(Md.
1972)(tidalwaters);McNeelyv.
Bd.
ofAppeal,261N.
E.
2d336,345(Mass.
1970)(localbusinessdistrict);Goldenv.
PlanningBd.
,285N.
E.
2d291,304-05(N.
Y.
1972)(growthmanagement);Justv.
MarinetteCounty,201N.
W.
2d761,772(Wis.
1972)(wetlands).
125.
260U.
S.
393(1922).
126.
FREDBOSSELMANETAL.
,THETAKINGISSUE:ANANALYSISOFTHECONSTITU-TIONALLIMITSOFLANDUSECONTROL(1973).
127.
438U.
S.
104(1978).
128.
DavidL.
Callies,Takings:AnIntroductionandOverview,24U.
HAw.
L.
REV.
1(2002).
129.
SeeLorettov.
TeleprompterManhattanCATVCorp.
,458U.
S.
419,441(1982).
130.
Id.
at455.
2002115PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWgenesisfromPennsylvaniaCoalCo.
v.
Mahon131andJusticeHolmes'"toofar"language:ifaregulationgoes"toofar"itmaybeatakingundertheU.
S.
Constitution.
A.
PerSeTakingsandtheEliminationofAllEconomicallyBeneficialUseThefirstoftheseregulatorytakingrulesisthecategoricalorperseruleofLucasv.
SouthCarolinaCoastalCouncil132in1992:ifalanduseregulationleavestheaffectedlandownerwithnoeco-nomicallybeneficialuseofland,thengovernmenthastakenthelandbyregulationinthesamefashionasifithaddonesobyemi-nentdomain.
Sincethereisnodefensetoaphysicaltaking(con-demnation,exerciseofeminentdomain,compulsorypurchase)itmakesnodifferencewhygovernmentchoosestoregulatethatland.
33Thetheoryisthataparticularlandowneroughtnottobeartheburdenofvirtualconfiscation,whichinallfairnessshouldbebornebythepolityasawhole.
Ofcourse,alandownerisonlyentitledtothatdegreeofpropertyrightsprotectionagainstconfiscationofrightsthelandownerinfactpossesses.
Thus,iftheregulationabatesanuisanceorreflectsabackgroundprincipleofastate'slawofproperty34(likearesourcesubjecttoacustomaryrightorthepublictrustdoctrine)135thengovernmentmayregu-latewithoutcompensationevenifdeprivingalandownerofallvi-ableeconomicuseoftheland.
Otherwise,theFifthAmendmentrequirescompensationasifthepropertywerephysicallytakenorcondemned.
IntheLucascase,theapplicationofastatecoastalprotectionstatuteforbiddingresidential(indeedany)constructionseaward131.
Pa.
CoalCo.
,260U.
S.
at419.
132.
505U.
S.
1003(1992).
133.
BOSSELMAN,supranote126,at8.
134.
Lucas,505U.
S.
at1030-31;seealsoLouiseA.
Halper,WhytheNuisanceKnotCan'tUndotheTakingsMuddle,28IND.
L.
REV.
329(1995).
135.
DavidL.
Callies,CustomandPublicTrust:BackgroundPrinciplesofStatePropertyLaw,30Envtl.
L.
Rep.
(Envtl.
L.
Inst.
)10003(2000);DavidL.
Callies&J.
DavidBremer,BackgroundPrinciples,inTAKINGSIDESONTAKINGISSUES(ThomasE.
Robertsed.
,2002);DavidJ.
Bederman,TheCuriousResurrectionofCustom:BeachAccessandJudicialTakings,96COLUM.
L.
REV.
1375(1996);PaulSullivan,Tradi-tionalandCustomaryRevolutions:TheLawofCustomandtheConflictofTraditionsinHawaii,20U.
HAw.
L.
REV.
99(1998).
Foracaseholdingcustomtobeaback-groundprincipleofastate'slawofproperty,seeStevensv.
CityofCannonBeach,854P.
2d449(Or.
1993);forpublictrust,seeMatthewsv.
BayHeadImprovementAss'n,471A.
2d355(N.
J.
1984);Bellv.
TownofWellsBeach,557A.
2d168(Me.
1989);Pur-diev.
AttorneyGenenral,732A.
2d442(N.
H.
1999).
[Vol.
2016https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXofabeachlineresultedinsuchacategoricaltakingwhenthelawpreventedtheowneroftwobeachlotsfromconstructinghouseslocatedjustseawardofthatline.
Thepurposesofthestatutein-cludedhabitatpreservationandecosystemconservation.
Nomat-ter,saidtheCourt.
Picnickingandcamping-theremaininguses-werenoteconomicallybeneficialorviable(thelandstillhadvalue)andsotheapplicationoftheSouthCarolinastatutere-sultedintheequivalentofaphysicaltaking.
Justasinaphysicaltaking,therationale-solongasitwaspublicandnotprivate-wasirrelevantandcompensationwasrequired.
AstheCourtnotedintheLucasopinion,suchperseorcate-goricaltakingswillberare,thoughcertainlycoastalzoneandcon-servationareapreservationwhereregulationpermitsnoeconomicallybeneficialusewillbeparticularlyvulnerable.
TheU.
SCourtofClaimsandtheFederalCircuit,whichtakesappealstherefrom,havebeenparticularlystrictinrequiringcompensa-tiontopropertyownerswhoselandhasbeenlefteconomicallyuse-lessafterthedenialofCorpsofEngineers§404dredgeandfillpermits.
136Also,astheLucasfactsclearlydemonstrate,statecoastalzoneregulationsarevulnerabletotheextentthattheypermitnoeconomicallybeneficialuseofprivatelandandarenotshieldedbysuchasprotectionofcustomaryaccessrightsasinOregon,137andpublictrustaccessrightsasinNewJersey.
138InbothMaineandNewHampshire,courtshaverejectedattemptstopreventuseofprivatelandinordertoprovideaccesstobeachareasheldinpub-lictrustbythestate.
39Moreover,classificationssuchastheaforementionedstateconservationdistrictinHawaii,arecer-tainlysuspecttotheextenttheboundariesofthedistrictincludeprivatelandandpermitnodemonstrablyviable,economicallyvia-bleorbeneficialuses.
B.
PartialTakingsClearlythemorecommonoftheregulatorytakingssituationswillbethoseinwhichlandusecontrolsresultinpartialtakingsof136.
PalmBeachIslesAssocs.
v.
UnitedStates,208F.
3d1374(Fed.
Cir.
2000);LoveladiesHarbor,Inc.
v.
UnitedStates,28F.
3d1171(Fed.
Cir.
1994);FloridaRockIndus.
,Inc.
v.
UnitedStates,18F.
3d1560(Fed.
Cir.
1994).
137.
Oregonexrel.
Thorntonv.
Hay,462P.
2d671(Or.
1969);seealsoStevensv.
CityofCannonBeach,854P.
2d449(Or.
1993).
138.
Matthewsv.
BayHeadofImprovementAss'n,471A.
2d355(N.
J.
1984).
139.
Purdiev.
AttorneyGeneral,732A.
2d442(N.
H.
1999);Bellv.
TownofWellsBeach,557A.
2d168(Me.
1989).
2002]17PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWlandorinterestsinland.
Here,thecourtsattempttobalancetheextentofeconomicharmtothelandowner,andinparticulartheeffectonthelandowner'sdistinctorreasonableinvestment-backedexpectationsagainstthecharacterofthegovernmentalac-tion.
Thesetests-oratleastthemostwidely-acceptedver-sion-comefromtheU.
S.
SupremeCourt'sdecisioninPennCentralTransportationCo.
v.
CityofNewYork.
140TheCourtusedtheterm"distinct"ratherthan"reasonable"withrespecttoexpectationsofthelandowner,butsomanycourtsnowusetheterm"reasonable"thattherulehas"morphed"accordingly.
Also,thecontextofthe"characterofgovernmentalaction"portionoftherulemakesitprettyclearthattheCourthadinmindthedis-tinctionbetweenphysicalandregulatorytakings.
However,onceagain,currentliteratureandjurisprudenceappearstohavechangedthemeaningtoaninvestigationintothevaluesthatthegovernmentistryingtoprotect.
Thus,forexample,istheregula-tionfortheprotectionofhealthandsafetyorwelfare141TheCourt,inLucas,stressedtheimportanceofthisruleandthesourceoftherule(PennCentral),142andhascontinuedtoempha-sizeitsimportanceinrecentcases.
143Oneofthemostimportantquestionswhichcourtsaddressindecidingregulatorytakingscasesisthedenominatororrelevantparcelquestion:ifalandownerownsadditionalinterestsinprop-ertybesidestheonewhichissubjecttoaregulatorytakingclaim,shouldthecourtincludethoseotherinterestsindecidingwhatkind(totalorpartial)orindeedwhether,therehasbeenaregula-torytakingThus,forexample,theU.
S.
SupremeCourthasre-centlyrefusedtoviewathree-yearmoratoriumonalllanddevelopmentasadiscretesegmentofpropertyforregulatorytak-ingspurposes,preferringinsteadtoviewalongercontinuum.
TheCourtalsorestatedinstrongtermsitspreferenceforincludingallofalandowner'sinterests-theso-called"wholeparcel"doc-trine.
144In1987,theCourtalsorefusedtoseparateoutamineralestateforseparateregulatorytakingstreatment.
45However,the140.
438U.
S.
104(1978).
141.
SeeFirstEnglishEvangelicalLutheranChurchv.
CountyofLosAngeles,210Cal.
App.
3dSupp.
1353(Cal.
App.
Dep'tSuper.
Ct.
1989).
142.
Lucas,505U.
S.
1003,1019n.
8(1992).
143.
SeePalazzolov.
RhodeIsland,533U.
S.
606,632-36(2001)(O'Connor,J.
,con-curring);seealsoTahoeSierraPres.
Council,Inc.
v.
TahoeReg'lPlanningAgency,535U.
S.
302(2002)(Stevens,J.
).
144.
TahoeSierraPres.
Council,Inc.
,535U.
S.
302(2002).
145.
KeystoneBituminousCoalAss'nv.
DeBenedictis,480U.
S.
470(1987).
294[Vol.
2018https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXFederalCircuithasonseveraloccasionsconsideredonlyasmallparcelforwhichtheCorpsofEngineersdenieddredgeandfillper-mitsinholdingthatgovernmenthadtakenpropertybyregula-tion,refusingtoconsidersurroundingpropertyonavarietyofgrounds.
146Severalstatecourtshavealsoconsideredtherelevantparcelquestion,oftenwithdifferentresults,butsettingoutusefulcriteriafordecidingwhennearby(usuallyadjoining)propertyispartofthedenominatorandwhenitisnot.
147C.
UnconstitutionalLandDevelopmentConditionsTheU.
S.
SupremeCourtalsoformulatedarulefordealingwithconditionssuchasimpactfees,dedicationsandin-lieufeesonlanddevelopmentpermitslikebuildingandcoastalzoneper-mitsandsubdivisionplatapprovals.
148Suchconditionsareun-constitutionalunlessthey:1.
furtheralegitimatestateinterest;2.
arerelatedbymeansofanessentialnexustoaneedorprob-lemgeneratedbythelanddevelopmentseekingthelandde-velopmentpermit;and3.
areproportionaltothatneedorproblem.
Thereisconsiderabledebateoverthelimitations,ifany,onthisso-called"heightenedscrutiny"oflanddevelopmentcondi-tions.
Thus,forexample,somecourtshavelimitedthisscrutinytoadhocdecisionsandrefusedtoapplyittolegislatively-leviedlanddevelopmentconditions.
149Othercourtslimitthescrutinytolanddedicationconditionsonly,observingthatbothoftheU.
S.
Su-premeCourtdecisionssettingoutthetestinvolvedsuchdedica-tions.
150Thesequestionsaside,manycourtshaveupheld1'5and146.
PalmBeachIslesAssocs.
v.
UnitedStates,208F.
3d1374(Fed.
Cir.
2000);FloridaRockIndus.
,Inc.
v.
UnitedStates,18F.
3d1560(Fed.
Cir.
1994);LoveladiesHarbor,Inc.
v.
UnitedStates,28F.
3d1171(Fed.
Cir.
1994).
147.
See,e.
g.
,AvalonBayComtys.
,Inc.
v.
TownofOrange,775A.
2d284(Conn.
2001);seealsoK&KConstr.
,Inc.
v.
Dep'tofNaturalRes.
,575N.
W.
2d531(Mich.
1998).
148.
SeeNollanv.
Cal.
CoastalComm'n,483U.
S.
825(1987);Dolanv.
CityofTigard,512U.
S.
374(1994).
149.
See,e.
g.
,Ehrlichv.
CulverCity,519U.
S.
929(1996).
150.
Indeed,theCourtitselfsoobservedinMontereyv.
DelMonteDunes,Ltd.
,526U.
S.
687(1999),butstoppedwellshortofsayingthatthetestwassolimited,onlyobservingthattheCourthadnotyetapplieditbeyonddedications.
151.
See,e.
g.
,N.
Ill.
HomeBuildersAss'nv.
CountyofDuPage,649N.
E.
2d384(Ill.
1995).
2002]29519PACEENVIRONMENTALLAWREVIEWstruckdown152landdevelopmentconditionsonconstitutionalgrounds.
Inconclusion,thelegallandscapeisconsiderablyalteredinQuietRevolutioncountry.
TheU.
S.
SupremeCourthasnotover-ruledPennsylvaniaCoalv.
Mahon153anddoneawaywithregula-torytakings,asadvocatedinTheTakingIssuein1973.
Farfromit.
TheCourthasinsteadreinvigoratedthedoctrine,clearlyes-tablishingbothperserulesfor"total"takings(landownerleftwithnoeconomicallybeneficialuse)andpartialtakings,togetherwithanew"unconstitutionallanddevelopmentconditions"doc-trineintothebargain.
Onecanhardlyfailtonoticethatthetar-getoftheCourt'sdecisionshavebeen,moreoftenthannot,statelanduseregulatorystatuteseitherprotectingnatural(usuallycoastal)resources54orlocalimplementationofstateorfederalre-sourceprotectionorhavebeengrowthmanagementstatutorypro-grams.
155ItisthereforearguablethatasaferhavenforlegitimateprotectionofenvironmentalresourcesliesinlocallandusecontrolsfirmlyrootedinthetraditionofVillageofEuclidv.
AmblerRealtyCo.
,156Nectowv.
CityofCambridge,57andothercaseswhichupheldlocalzoningrestrictionsinprinciplewhileraisingappropriatecautionsabouthowsuchlocallandusecon-trolsshouldbeapplied.
IV.
Conclusion:EnergizedLocalGovernment:"TakingBack"ControlsLocallandusecontrolshavenotwitheredawaydespitethe"overlap"ofstatelanduseregulationinsomeforminanumberofstates.
158Ofcourse,thestatehasalwaysbeentherepositoryof152.
See,e.
g.
,ChristopherLakeDev.
Co.
v.
St.
LouisCounty,35F.
3d1269(8thCir.
1994)(strikingdownacountydrainagesystemrequirement);Walzv.
TownofSmithtown,46F.
3d162(2dCir.
1995)(findingatotallackofnexusbetweenwaterserviceandroadwidening);Steelv.
CapeCorp.
,677A.
2d634(Md.
Ct.
Spec.
App.
1996);ArtPiculellGroupv.
ClackamasCounty,922P.
2d1227(Or.
Ct.
App.
1996);Nielsenv.
Merriam,No40106-8-I,1998WL390442(Wash.
Ct.
App.
July13,1998);Burtonv.
ClarkCounty,958P.
2d343(Wash.
Ct.
App.
1998);Manocherianv.
LenoxHillHosp.
,643N.
E.
2d479(N.
Y.
1994).
153.
260U.
S.
393,415(1922).
154.
See,e.
g.
,Nollan,483U.
S.
825;Lucas,505U.
S.
1003;Palazzolo,533U.
S.
606.
155.
See,e.
g.
DelMonteDunes,526U.
S.
687;Dolan,512U.
S.
374.
156.
272U.
S.
365(1926).
157.
277U.
S.
183(1928).
158.
ExamplesincludeHawaii,Vermont,Florida,Oregon,Georgia,Washington,Maryland,NewJersey,California,Arizona,Texas,Connecticut,Massachusetts,NewYork,NorthCarolina,Pennsylvania,andVirginia.
Theirprogramsareallamplyde-scribedinsuchbooksasSTATEANDREGIONALCOMPREHENSIVEPLANNING(PeterA.
296[Vol.
2020https://digitalcommons.
pace.
edu/pelr/vol20/iss1/12THEQUIETREVOLUTIONREDUXthepolicepowerinourgovernmentalsystemandtherefore,locallanduseregulationhasalwaysbeennotonlysubjecttostatecon-trol,butindeedhasrarelybeenpossiblewithoutstateenablingacts.
Nevertheless,notonlyhavetraditionallandusecontrolssuchaszoning159andmoreflexible"growthmanagement"plansandregulationsbeenused,160butthereisagrowingtrendtowardenvironmentalprotectionatthelocallevelaswell.
Longtheprov-inceoffederalandstatestatutesdealingwithCleanAir,CleanWater,HazardousWasteandCoastalZone/WetlandProtection,environmentalprotectionappearstobegoinglocal.
161Thisisaverygoodthingsinceitislargelystateregulatoryprogramsandregulationswhichhavebornethebruntofincreas-inglysuccessfulregulatorytakingschallenges.
ItisthelocallanduseregulationwhichisfirmlygroundedinU.
S.
SupremeCourtjurisprudencefollowingEuclidv.
AmblerRealtyCo.
162andNectowv.
CityofCambridge163inthe1920supholdingzoningdespiteHolmes'languageintheimmediatelyprecedingPennsylvaniaCoalCo.
v.
Mahon164decisionandculminatinginthemoremod-ernPennCentralTransportationCo.
v.
CityofNewYork,165up-holdingalocalhistoricpreservationlanduseregulationratherthanastateorregionallandusecontrol.
Buchsbaum&LarrySmitheds.
,1993);ERICDAMvIANKELLY,MANAGINGCOMMUNITYGROWTH:POLICIES,TECHNIQUES,ANDIMPACTS(1993);J.
BARRYCULLINGWORTH,PLAN-NINGINTHEUSA:POLICIES,ISSUES,ANDPROCESSES(1997);JOHNM.
DEGROVE&D.
MINESS,PLANNINGANDGROWTHMANAGEMENTINTHESTATES(1992).
159.
CLIFFORDWEAVER&RICHARDBABCOCK,CITYZONING-THEONCEANDFUTUREFRONTIER(1979).
160.
See,e.
g.
,FREILICH,supranote5,at167-208,253-78.
161.
See,e.
g.
,JohnR.
Nolon,WhatistheRoleofLocalGovernmentinEnvironmen-talLaw,225N.
Y.
L.
J.
506(2001);JOHNR.
NOLON,OPENGROUND:PRESERVINGTHELANDSCAPETHROUGHLOCALLANDUSELAW(2002).
162.
272U.
S.
365(1926).
163.
277U.
S.
183(1928).
164.
260U.
S.
393,415(1922).
165.
438U.
S.
104(1978).
2002129721