US
takings
SUMMARIES
OF
SIGNIFICANT
UNITED
STATES
CASES:

Dolan
v.
City
of
Tigard,
114
S.
Ct.
2309;
512
U.
S.
374
(
1994).
In
order
to
proceed
with
a
remodelling,
property
owner
was
required
to
dedicate
to
the
city
a
portion
of
her
property
which
fell
within
a
100
year
flood
plain
as
well
as
the
adjoining
15
feet
for
a
bike
path.
The
Court
struck
down
the
requirements,
stating
that
the
same
result
in
terms
of
flood
control
could
have
been
achieved
with
a
lesser
burden
on
the
landowner
by
merely
barring
development
on
the
flood
plain.
The
bike
path
requirement,
according
to
the
Court,
failed
to
establish
a
reasonable
relationship
between
the
burden
of
the
proposed
development
(
increased
traffic)
and
the
required
exaction.
There
was
no
quantified
proof
that
traffic
to
a
hardware
store
created
a
need
for
a
bike
path.
The
municipality
has
the
burden
of
proof
to
establish
that
the
benefit
to
the
public
of
the
required
public
facilities
has
a
"
rough
proportionality"
to
the
burden
created
by
the
proposed
private
development.

Lucas
v.
South
Carolina
Coastal
Council,
112
S.
Ct.
2886;
505
U.
S.
1003
(
1992).
Under
state
statute,
a
recreation
lot
owner
was
forbidden
to
build
houses
on
the
beach.
A
lower
court
finding
had
established
that
he
had
been
"
deprived
of
any
reasonable
economic
use
of
the
lots"
and
that
they
were
"
valueless".
No
further
enquiry
is
necessary
if
property
is
physically
invaded
or
if
all
economically
viable
use
of
the
property
is
denied.
The
Court
acknowledged
that
all
property
is
held
under
an
"
implied
limitation"
that
newly
enacted
laws
and
regulations
may
restrict
its
use,
but
also
held
that
government
could
not
"
subsequently
eliminate
all
economically
valuable
use"
of
property
without
compensating
the
owner.
To
avoid
a
taking,
a
state
would
have
had
to
identify
background
principles
of
nuisance
and
property
law
which
would
prohibit
the
owner
from
developing
the
property.
