|
''Agins v. City of Tiburon'', , was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the test for determining whether a zoning ordinance or governmental regulation will be considered a taking is whether or not such action “substantially advances” a legitimate state interest. This test and holding have since been abrogated by ''Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc.'', 554 U.S. 528 (2005). The Supreme Court there held that the "substantially advances" test would no longer be used to determine regulatory takings, reverting to the precedent of ''Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City''. == Background == California state law required the city to prepare a general plan governing both land use and the development of open space land. After Agins acquired of unimproved property zoned one house per acre, the city announced that it intended to acquire it, and issued bonds to finance the taking. It filed an eminent domain action, but on the eve of trial abandoned it. Instead, it amended the zoning ordinance placing the subject land in a zone that permitted construction of one to five homes, the exact number being discretionary with the city. The owners contended that the construction of one home was economically infeasible and that the city intended to convert their land into open space by preventing its development. They sued seeking just compensation for a regulatory taking. The owners alleged that their land had greater value than other land in California because of its spectacular views of San Francisco Bay, and the rezoning prevented economically feasible development, thereby completely destroying its value, and thus effecting a taking without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. In an opinion that broke with preexisting state law, the California Supreme Court refused to recognize the existence of a regulatory taking cause of action, and held that the only remedy available to the owner would be a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to invalidate the regulation on grounds of denial of substantive due process, but not just compensation. Though the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that decision on other grounds in 1980, in 1987 it overruled the California Supreme Court's Agins decision in First English Evangelical etc. Church v. County of Los Angeles (1987). In its Agins opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court never reached the issue of whether an as-applied taking occurred because Agins had failed to apply for the necessary development entitlement, and therefore the court thought this issue was not ripe for judicial decision. The court held that the zoning ordinance did not on its face deny Agins all use of the land, and hence there was no facial taking. Nor did the court reach the principal question submitted to it: whether in the context of an alleged regulatory taking, as is the case in physical takings, the aggrieved owner's remedy is "just compensation" as specified in the Fifth Amendment, or only a judgment declaring the regulation in question to be invalid. Eventually, in 1987, in the ''First English'' case, the Supreme Court overruled the California Supreme Court's ''Agins'' decision. It took Ms. Agins over 30 years of administrative proceedings and litigation before she was finally permitted to build three houses on the subject 20-acre property. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Agins v. City of Tiburon」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|