Property Rights, Dolan v. Tigard

[A18]

Dolan v. Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994)

BACKGROUND: An owner of a city lot applied for a building permit to expand the store and parking lot. The city would grant the permit only if the owner agreed to dedicate a portion of the lot as a greenway and a second portion as a bike path. The owner filed a claim that this was a violation of the Fifth Amendment--a taking "without just compensation."

JUDGES: REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which O’CONNOR, SCALIA, KENNEDY, and THOMAS, JJ., joined. STEVENS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SOUTER, J., filed a dissenting opinion.

OPINION: CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.

Petitioner challenges the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court which held that the city of Tigard could condition the approval of her building permit on the dedication of a portion of her property for flood control and traffic improvements. 317 Ore. 110, 854 P.2d 437 (1993). We granted certiorari to resolve a question left open by our decision in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825  (1987), of what is the required degree of connection between the exactions imposed by the city and the projected impacts of the proposed development.

...

The judgment of the Supreme Court of Oregon is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

[A18]

There is a line that must be drawn. May the state force an individual to convert to Christianity in order to seek state employment?

The government was using this condition to blackmail her. It had nothing to do with her situation.

[A18]

Here in Virginia, Patrick Henry College needed a right-hand turn lane into its property. The government said that it would allow the college to have the turn lane only if it would pave the lane, then donate the land under the lane to the state highway system. The college gladly complied, recognizing the burden the lane was placing on the highway system.

That's fine. But Mrs. Dolan's case for quite different. The government was taking her land in a way that was absolutely disconnected from her intended use.

The government could take her land under the power of eminent domain if they would pay her fair market value, but they wanted to pay her nothing. It was a clear violation of the Takings Clause.

[A18]

What is the connection?

Welcome to the dark side, BTW.

[A18]

By that logic, virtually anything is connected. Only a very minute percentage of customers would use the bike trail.

The bottom line is, she wasn't placing any burden on the public. They were just trying to take part of her property without paying her fair value.