|
COMMUNITY RIGHTS COUNSEL
FILES BRIEF TO DEFEND PROTECTIONS
FOR LAKE TAHOE
Community Rights Counsel (CRC) filed a brief this week
in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
to support efforts to protect Lake Tahoe.
Lake Tahoe is the crown jewel of the
Sierra Nevada mountains and renowned for its exceptional
clarity. Its purity is threatened, however, by nearby
development, which causes increased algae growth and
reduces the Lake's clarity by at least one foot per year.
To protect the Lake, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
has imposed reasonable curbs on development.
The Tahoe-Sierra Preservation
Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency case
illustrates the catch-22 faced by state, regional, and
local governments. The local economy and property values
in the Tahoe Basin are driven by the beauty of the Lake.
Development restrictions are necessary to protect the
Lake, economic opportunities, and property values. Yet
developers and others sometimes respond to such
reasonable protections by filing lawsuits. Here,
approximately 450 property owners in the Basin have
challenged protections for Lake Tahoe, including two
temporary development bans designed to allow for adequate
planning.
On January 15, 1999, a federal district
court in Nevada ruled that the temporary planning
moratoria, although reasonable in duration,
"took" the plaintiffs' property in violation of
the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The court
relied on the U.S. Supreme Court's 1992 decision in Lucas
v. South Carolina Coastal Council, which holds that
a taking occurs where regulation deprives land of all
economically viable use, regardless of the public
interest served by the regulation. The district court
ruled that the planning moratoria caused a taking under Lucas,
and thus could not be justified by the compelling public
interest in protecting Lake Tahoe. The ruling calls into
question reasonable planning moratoria across the
country.
CRC's brief, filed on behalf of the International Municipal
Lawyers Association (IMLA), explains that land loses
all economically viable use under Lucas only
when the land is rendered valueless. It demonstrates that
because the plaintiffs' land was not rendered valueless, Lucas
does not apply and the claims should be rejected. The
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency requested IMLA to file the
brief to provide a comprehensive analysis of the issue,
which the district court described as the "key"
to the case. The issue also is critical to the viability
of sprawl controls, environmental safeguards, and other
community protections implemented by municipalities
throughout the United States. Copies of the brief are
available from CRC. |
