Landmark
Decisions
Oklahoma Chapter
American Planning Association
|
|
Landmark
Decisions |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Reg. Plg. Agency April 24, 2002. The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, provided a solid win for the planning process in the case of Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). (Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg formed the majority; Justices Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas dissented.) The issue at hand was whether or not a temporary moratorium on land development constitutes a taking of property. The Court’s decision stated ‘moratoria are an essential tool of successful development’ reaffirming the value of planning in the development process. This is a major victory for planning in more than a decade In this far-reaching decision, the Court found that the use of moratoria, in this case, as part of the planning process, does not constitute taking of property requiring compensation to the landowner. Rather than forcing landowners and planning officials to rush through the development process, the Court’s decision affirmed the need for communities to take the time to think things through and make informed decisions before breaking ground. In numerous references to “fairness and justice” the Court rejected the notion that a categorical rule with regard to moratoria would be in the best interests of landowners or planners. Rather, that all parties involved in the development process stand to benefit from the dialogue that takes place during moratoria. In a clear endorsement of the planning process, the Court’s decision also stated that “To the extent that communities are forced to abandon using moratoria, landowners will have incentives to develop their property quickly before a comprehensive plan can be enacted, thereby fostering inefficient and ill-conceived growth.” The decision also stated that moratoria provide a benefit that relieves “added pressure on decisionmakers to quickly resolve land-use questions, disadvantaging landowners and interest groups less organized or familiar with the planning process.” The APA had filed an amicus brief in support of TRPA, a bi-state organization created in 1969 to protect Lake Tahoe and the surrounding environs in California and Nevada. The brief stated the view of APA that planners need to have to ability to use interim development controls and temporary moratoria to avoid making decisions that could adversely impact the natural environment and surrounding communities. U.S. Supreme Court Decision: Talking Points · This is the best legal victory for planning in more than a decade. The Court’s decision reaffirmed the value of planning as part of the development process. This decision was outstanding in its clarity, and is very balanced too. No legal decision in the past 10 years has so strongly supported planning as a legitimate activity of government, and the Court seems to suggest that construction should be consistent with the provisions of a plan. · ‘Moratoria are an essential tool of successful development’ as stated by the Court. The Court recognized that it is important for community residents to take the time to think things through and make informed decisions before breaking ground. · A rush to develop may not be in the best interest of the landowner. A rush to decision in the development process “would likely create added pressure…to quickly resolve land-use questions, disadvantaging landowners and interest groups less organized or familiar with the planning process.” · Planning is an integral element of an open and democratic development process that safeguards the rights of all landowners and residents. The planning process is comprised of steps designed to provide community residents access and entry into the development dialogue. · “Fairness and justice” for all is a central tenet of the planning process. All parties involved in the development process stand to benefit from the dialogue that takes place during moratoria. The planning process takes time to assess the concerns of the community as a whole. · A categorical rule is not appropriate for moratoria. Planners must make development decisions in a case-by-case manner based on local issues and environments. By declining to make a per se ruling against moratoria, the Court is supportive of the planners’ need to have different tools available for different localities. · Moratoria are a tool of last resort for local government. Contrary to the contention that planners across the nation use moratoria as a primary planning tool, it is a rarely seen resource employed only when all other options for deliberation have been exhausted. · The APA had filed an amicus brief in support of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a bi-state organization created in 1969 to protect Lake Tahoe and the surrounding environs in California and Nevada. The brief stated the view of APA that planners need to have the ability to use interim development controls and temporary moratoria so that communities avoid making decisions that adversely impact the natural environment and surrounding places. · The planning process supports development needs as well as environmental protection. Planning seeks to foster smart growth, which includes development that meets community needs while preserving scenic, historic and natural resources. The Court’s decision endorses planning as a prudent and responsible activity designed to advance the general well-being of a community in a fiscally efficient and effective manner. · The Tahoe decision is a win-win-win for planners, the public and property owners. The public wins because the Court encourages a thoughtful, deliberative planning process that includes them. Planners win because we still have an important and necessary planning tool (moratorium) which certainly would have been abandoned if the decision had gone the other way. Property owners win because the court acknowledges, "there is a clear reciprocity of advantage because the moratorium protects the interests of all affected landowners against immediate construction that might be inconsistent with the provisions of the plan that is ultimately adopted." · Bottom Line: Property owners and communities alike stand to reap the benefits of good planning within an open, democratic process, rather than being subjected to hasty decision-making that rewards few and disadvantages many. Related stories: Justices
back local rules over landowners
Justices
Back Regulators In Property Rights Case TAHOE-SIERRA
PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., etal. v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY etal.
|
|
|
|
|
^ top |
|