Local officials and developers are watching a U.S. Supreme Court case that could force local governments to pay property owners for development delays.
Justices deciding a Lake Tahoe case stemming from a temporary three-year development moratorium in the early 1980s must confront the issue of whether a constitutional ban on "taking" someone's land without compensation applies to temporary government land-use bans.
Lawrence experts say the court's ruling will affect local growth debates, but they disagree about whether it could change temporary city moratoria now in place.
"I think if there was a rule that said any temporary halt in development was a 'taking,' it would have a significant impact on our ability to plan properly for growth," Assistant City Manager Dave Corliss said.
Lawrence has two temporary moratoria in effect, on annexing land in North Lawrence and in the floodplain, expected to be in place until floodplain development regulations have been formulated. But, Corliss said, "we don't have any moratoria that would prohibit somebody from developing property," the issue in the Lake Tahoe case.
But Todd Thompson, a Lawrence attorney who specializes in development matters, said the Supreme Court's decision could still affect the existing moratoria.
"Right now, I suspect that the city is a little hesitant to impose moratoriums, just because of the potential for a finding that it is a taking," Thompson said.
The city does have other ways of delaying development. It doesn't issue building permits where roads and sewers haven't been built, Corliss said, but property owners have been understanding of that requirement.
And years ago, development on Iowa Street was halted until the city could put a comprehensive plan in place for the area.
The Supreme Court has dealt with a similar case before, deciding in 1987 that governments must pay for temporary takings unless they are normal and relate to the permitting process.
"The issue always boils down to one of reasonableness," said Jane Eldredge, another Lawrence development attorney. "We've had some moratoria in town that have been for a couple of months. The landowners in those have not felt as though their land was devalued."
The court heard arguments Monday; it gave no indication when a ruling is expected. The case is Tahoe-Sierra Preservation v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 00-1167.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
No comments
Commenting is turned off for this story.