Editorial: ‘Takings’ theory hits a roadblock

Thursday, April 25, 2002 | 9:11 a.m.

In 1981 the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ordered a moratorium on development at Lake Tahoe. The Nevada-California agency's temporary ban, which lasted a total of 32 months, was essential because the agency needed more time to come up with a long-term plan to curtail building-related runoff that was clouding the transparent water of the lake, one of the most beautiful bodies of water in the United States. But some landowners sued the agency, arguing that they had a constitutional right to be compensated by the government because the temporary ban meant they were unable to use their property.

On Tuesday, two decades later, the matter finally was settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, which correctly determined that the government doesn't have to pay the landowners. The majority decision written by Justice John Paul Stevens acknowledges the constitutional right of compensation when government acquires private land for a public use, but he adds that this doesn't always apply when government enforces regulations that may temporarily limit the use of property. "Treating them all as ... takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford," Stevens writes.

If governments knew that they would be required to compensate property owners on every temporary land-use restriction, it could have a paralyzing effect. They might fear placing reasonable limitations on individual property owners, even those actions that protect the public. The result also could be hurried, ill-advised land use decisions by agencies in order to avoid large payouts to landowners. In recent years the Supreme Court has championed property rights, but its Lake Tahoe decision strikes a sensible balance, an acknowledgement that regulators still have the power to take necessary steps to safeguard the environment and the public.