San Diego Law Review
Dramatic Decreases in Clarity: Using the Penn Central Analysis to Solve the Tahoe-Sierra Controversy
Document Type
Comments
Abstract
This Comment discusses the issues and confusion regarding regulatory takings and the proper test for establishing a regulatory taking. The author starts by discussing the traditional ad hoc factors used to determine whether a taking had occurred. The author then discusses how these factors formed the basis of the three-factor test used in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City. Next, the author explains the controversial area of temporary development moratoria and how this issue has been dealt with in the Lake Tahoe Basin of California . He suggests that the plaintiff's in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency made an error by choosing to forgo the Penn Central analysis and that a different outcome might have been attained under such an analysis. The author concludes that the Penn Central analysis should be relied upon in all future regulatory takings cases because it takes into account the human issues that inevitably arise in such cases and could help build a more uniform and functional body of precedent than currently exists in this area of law.
Recommended Citation
Dana Larkin,
Dramatic Decreases in Clarity: Using the Penn Central Analysis to Solve the Tahoe-Sierra Controversy,
40
San Diego L. Rev.
1597
(2003).
Available at:
https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol40/iss4/17