Summary
The Supreme Court considered whether Rhode Island’s regulation of coastal wetlands effected a taking of Anthony Palazzolo’s property without just compensation. The Court held that the takings claim was ripe and that the claimant was not barred merely because he acquired the property after the regulations were enacted. Because an upland portion retained substantial economic value, the property was not deprived of all economically beneficial use; the Court remanded for consideration under the Penn Central framework.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether petitioner's regulatory-takings claim was ripe despite his failure to submit additional applications for lesser or upland-only development.
- Whether a landowner who acquired title after enactment of the challenged land-use regulation is categorically barred from asserting a regulatory-takings claim.
- Whether the wetlands regulations deprived petitioner of all economically beneficial use of the property under Lucas.
- Whether petitioner's claim under the Penn Central framework could proceed on remand.
Holdings
- The claim was ripe because the agency's decisions and regulations made clear, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that filling and ordinary development of the wetlands would not be allowed; further futile applications were not required.
- A purchaser or successive title holder is not categorically barred from asserting a regulatory-takings claim merely because the challenged regulation predates the acquisition of title.
- Petitioner failed to establish a Lucas total taking because the parcel retained substantial economic value, including an estimated $200,000 upland development value and the ability to support a substantial residence.
- Petitioner's Penn Central claim was not barred merely because he acquired title after the challenged regulation became effective; the claim required consideration of the Penn Central factors on remand.
Key quotations
“Under our ripeness rules a takings claim based on a law or regulation which is alleged to go too far in burdening property depends upon the landowner's first having followed reasonable and necessary steps to allow regulatory agencies to exercise their full discretion in considering development plans for the property, including the opportunity to grant any variances or waivers allowed by law.” (621)
“Future generations, too, have a right to challenge unreasonable limitations on the use and value of land.” (627)
“A regulation or common-law rule cannot be a background principle for some owners but not for others.” (630)
“Penn Central does not supply mathematically precise variables, but instead provides important guideposts that lead to the ultimate determination whether just compensation is required.” (634)
Factual background
Anthony Palazzolo owned approximately 20 acres in Westerly, Rhode Island, most of which consisted of salt marsh and coastal wetlands bordering Winnapaug Pond. Earlier development proposals by Shore Gardens, Inc., the corporation through which the property had been held, were denied or abandoned, and Rhode Island later enacted coastal-wetlands regulations restricting filling and development. After title passed to Palazzolo in 1978, the Coastal Resources Management Council denied proposals to fill the wetlands for a large development and a private beach club. Palazzolo claimed that the restrictions effected a taking by depriving him of all economically beneficial use or, alternatively, under the Penn Central test.
Procedural history
After the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council denied petitioner's development applications, petitioner challenged the agency decision in Rhode Island courts and then filed an inverse-condemnation action in Rhode Island Superior Court. The Superior Court ruled against him, and the Rhode Island Supreme Court affirmed on ripeness, post-enactment acquisition, and economic-use grounds, also rejecting his Penn Central claim. The United States Supreme Court reversed the ripeness and post-enactment-acquisition rulings, affirmed the rejection of the total-taking claim, and remanded for consideration of the Penn Central claim.
Remand instructions
The Rhode Island courts were instructed to consider petitioner's claim under the Penn Central principles and to conduct further proceedings not inconsistent with the Supreme Court's opinion. The total-deprivation claim need not be reconsidered because the parcel retained substantial economic value.