![Sample our Environment & Sustainability journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5935/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Environment-Sustainability.jpg"})
Abstract
On January 7, 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a case of great importance to planners and the planning profession, Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This case involves a moratorium on development. The property owners' position is that the enactment of the moratorium itself is a per se taking and they are owed compensation for the time that they were prohibited from developing their properties. The planning agency's position is that a moratorium should not be analyzed as a per se taking, but rather the Penn Central factors should be considered in determining the reasonableness of the moratorium on a case-by-case basis.
Observing oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court is an opportunity that no planner or attorney should miss. Each of the hypotheticals posed by the justices show the complexity of establishing a per se rule in the takings arena. Portions of the transcript are included below.
Michael M. Berger, Esq. argued on behalf of the property owners. John G. Roberts, Jr., Esq. argued on behalf of the planning agency. The Solicitor General, Theodore B. Olson, Esq., from the Department of Justice, argued on behalf of the United States and supported the planning agency.