A church owned land in rurual area that was used for a recreation area for disabled children.
Fire destroyed vegetation in the area, allowing flooding to occur.
To protect public safety, the county adopted an ordinance prohibiting any new building in the area until it determined what to do.
The church requested to build facilities was denied for 6 yrs while the county pondered what the bldg code should be for the area.
The church sued for loss of use of the land.
Can the church recover under the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment?
To determine whether the church can recover under the just compensation clause of the 5th Amendment, we need to understand the key elements involved and analyze the situation.
1. Just Compensation Clause: The 5th Amendment includes a provision known as the "just compensation clause," which states that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.
2. Taking of Property: In this case, the church claims that its property rights were taken or affected due to the county's actions. However, a crucial question is whether the government's actions constitute a "taking" under the 5th Amendment.
3. Types of Takings: The concept of "takings" includes two main categories: a physical taking and a regulatory taking.
a) Physical Taking: A physical taking occurs when the government physically appropriates or occupies someone's property. In this case, the county did not physically occupy or appropriate the church's land.
b) Regulatory Taking: A regulatory taking occurs when government regulations significantly diminish the value or use of the property without physically taking it. This is the category that the church's claim falls under.
4. Test for Regulatory Taking: The Supreme Court has established various tests to determine whether there has been a regulatory taking. The most commonly used test is the "Penn Central" test, which involves examining the economic impact of the regulation, the investment-backed expectations of the property owner, and the character of the government action.
a) Economic Impact: The church would need to demonstrate that the county's actions substantially diminished the value or use of their land.
b) Investment-Backed Expectations: The church would need to show that they made significant investments or plans based on a reasonable expectation that they could use the land for building facilities.
c) Character of the Government Action: The court would consider whether the county's actions went too far and amounted to a taking.
5. Balancing Test: Even if the church successfully meets the Penn Central test, the court would still need to balance the government's interest in protecting public safety and the church's interest in using their land. The court would weigh both sides to determine if the denial of the church's request for six years was excessive and constituted a taking.
Ultimately, the question of whether the church can recover under the just compensation clause depends on how the court applies the above legal principles and analyzes the specific facts of the case. This explanation provides the general framework, but consulting with legal professionals who specialize in property law would be necessary for a more accurate assessment of the church's chances of recovery in this situation.