Document: 477 U.S. 340 106 S.Ct. 2561 91 L.Ed.2d 285 MacDONALD, SOMMER & FRATES, Appellantv.YOLO COUNTY et al. No. 84-2015. Argued March 26, 1986. Decided June 25, Rehearing Denied Sept. 3, See 478 1035, 107 22. Syllabus Appellant submitted a proposal to the Yolo County Planning Commission subdivide certain property into 159 single-family and multifamily residential lots. The rejected proposal, Board of Supervisors affirmed on grounds that failed provide adequate public street access, sewer services, water supplies, police protection. then filed an action in California Superior Court, alleging appellee county city restricted question agricultural use by denying all subdivision applications thereby appropriated "entire economic use" for sole purpose providing public, open-space buffer. sought declaratory monetary relief. court sustained demurrer complaint, holding appellant's factual allegations were insufficient damages inverse condemnation foreclosed Agins v. City Tiburon, 24 Cal.3d 266, 157 Cal.Rptr. 372, 598 P.2d 25 (1979), aff'd, 447 255, 100 2138, 65 (1980). Court Appeal affirmed, Supreme denied petition hearing. Held: Absent final authoritative determination as how it will apply regulations at issue question, this cannot determine whether "taking" has occurred or "just compensation." Without knowing nature extent permitted development, adjudicate constitutionality purport limit it. Pp. 348-353. Affirmed. STEVENS, J., delivered opinion which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, dissenting opinion, BURGER, C.J., joined Parts I, II, III POWELL REHNQUIST, joined, post, p. 353. POWELL, 364. Howard N. Ellman, San Francisco, Cal., appellant. William L. Owen, Sacramento, appellees. [Amicus Curiae Information from page 341-342 intentionally omitted] Justice STEVENS Court. 1 presented is rejection deprived appellant its without just compensation contrary Fifth Fourteenth Amendments United States Constitution.1 2 * This appeal taken judgment sustaining owner's complaint money alleged property. In 1975, tentative map Commission. Under subject property, least part was planted with corn, would be subdivided 3 plan, however, determination. found numerous reasons why neither "consistent General Plan Yolo, nor specific plan embodied Zoning Regulations County." App. 73. focuses our attention four those reasons. id., 45-46 (fourth amended complaint). First, criticized because access proposed street: Davis, adjoin, refused permit extension Cowell Boulevard development. 74. Even ignoring obstacle, "[t]he ma[de] no provision any other means subdivision," calculated relying alone "constitut[e] real substantial danger health event fire, earthquake, flood, natural disaster." Id., 77. 4 Second, "Tentative Map [did] not service governmental entity": 5 "The only services El Macero interceptor require anne[x] existing Community Services Area. Said annexation Local Agency Formation jurisdiction. finds proceedings currently are pending before LAFCO subdivision." 75. 6 Third, development level [police] protection capable being afforded site [Yolo County] Sheriff's Department intense enough meet needs 76. Fourth, inadequate reason there "no made maintenance system entity." Ibid. 7 After rebuff, present and, same day, writ mandate. mandate action, still pending, seeks set aside Board's decision direct reconsider proposal. 32-33 (amended mandate). contrast, it, accuses appellees Davis "restricting Property applications, maps, requests implement use," 46, appropriating "for [providing] . buffer," 51. particular, fourth challenges respect adequacy sanitation fire protection.2 Because these according "none beneficial uses" allowed even land suitable 52. alleged, capital letters "without limitation foregoing enumeration," "any application zone change, variance relief futile." 58. also had "exhausted administrative remedies" seven causes "ripe" adjudication. 58, 59. 8 response charges demurred.3 Pointing "its earlier Order Sustaining Demurrers Granting Leave Amend," contended "the obvious uses than agriculture under Code," 115, referenced sections permitting such uses, among others, ranch farm dwellings storage facilities, see Code §§ 8-2.502, 8-2.503. "attemp[t] overcome defect conclusionary fact each every principal multiple accessory longer possible so does have value zoned." 115. It concluded that, irrespective insufficiency allegations, Court's 274-277, 376-378, 29-31 116, 118.4 9 affirmed. "accept[ed] true properly pled complaint," 126, did "not consider barred failure exhaust remedies res judicata," 125-126. But "f[ou]nd controlling herein," 130: 10 "In case [California] specifically clearly established, policy reasons, rule law precludes landowner recovering based upon regulation. We emphasize hold regulation amount taking compensation, simply held remedy condemnation. instead unconstitutional. Plaintiff trial pending. That proper remedy. claim maintained." 130-131 (citation footnote omitted). 11 alternative, determined entitled if provided remedy: 12 event, available situation, we constrained plaintiff state cause action. Pared their essence, purchased zoned approval units, urging City, application. unlike plaintiffs [a which] both allege facts establish unconstitutional private 13 plaintiff's here must fail claims failed. Here applied particular relatively intensive denied. denial equated refusal concedes purposes general zoning ordinance. Land planning all-or-nothing proposition. A entity required develop [the] full he might desire charged Here, Agins, defendants desired preclude less intensive, but valuable Accordingly, fails action." 132-133 omitted).5 14 hearing, perfected importance constitutionally appropriate cases involving regulatory takings, noted probable 474 917, 244, 88 253 (1985). On further consideration jurisdiction hear appeal, aided briefing oral argument, find ourselves unable address merits question. II 15 takings advanced two components. substance "taken" his property6 —that is, "goes too far." Pennsylvania Coal Co. Mahon, 260 393, 415, 43 158, 160, 67 L.Ed. 322 (1922). Kaiser Aetna States, 444 164, 178, 383, 392, 62 332 (1979). demonstrate proffered "just." 16 follows essential prerequisite assertion type intensity legally gone "too far" unless knows far goes. As Holmes emphasized throughout U.S., 416, S.Ct., "this degree—and therefore disposed propositions." Accord, 413, 159. To day "set formula where ends begins." Goldblatt Hempstead, 369 590, 594, 82 987, 990, 130 (1962). Instead, rely "as much [on] exercise logic." Andrus Allard, 51, 65, 318, 326, 210 Our accordingly "examined 'taking' engaging essentially ad hoc, inquiries identified several factors—such impact regulation, interference reasonable investment-backed expectations, character action—that significance." 175, 390. Penn Central Transportation New York 438 104, 124, 98 2646, 2659, 57 631 (1978) ("ad inquiries"); Eureka Mining Co., 357 155, 168, 78 1097, 1104, 1228 (1958) ("question turning circumstances case"). Until owner "obtained regarding ordinance property," "it impossible tell retain[s] [existing] expectation interests ha[ve] been destroyed." Williamson Comm'n Hamilton Bank, 473 172, 186, 190, n. 11, 105 3108, 3116, 3118, 87 126 explained last Term: 17 "[T]he difficult problem [is] define far," distinguish point becomes onerous effect appropriation through eminent domain physical possession. [R]esolution depends, significant part, analysis Commission's respondent's profit expectation. measured until property." 199-200, 3123 (footnote 18 191, 3119. 19 For similar municipality compensation" what, any, responsible body intends provide. 195, 3121 ("[T]he State's 'complete' State taking" omitted)). local agencies administering governing singularly flexible institutions; what they take one hand may give back other. example, recognized Landmarks Preservation Commission, primarily City's Law, authority authorize alterations, remit taxes, transfer rights ensure landmark return 112-115, 13, 2653-2655, 13. railroad smaller structure" 50-plus story office building, 137, 2665; 34, 2666, airspace above Grand Station Terminal transferable "to eight parcels vicinity Terminal, ha[d] construction new building," Law effected [the railroad's] 138, 2666. Whether inquiry asks "gone "just," answer use, affected property.7 20 uniformly reflect insistence adjudicating Thus, (1980), ordinances authorized between five residences appellants' 5-acre tract face, appellants improvements us. 260, 2141. Similarly, Diego Gas Electric Diego, 450 621, 101 1287, 551 (1981), dismissed appear city's rezoning adoption open space utility 631-632, 12, 1293-1294, 12. decided occurred, [were] necessary resolve federal all." 633, 1294. consequence, 28 U.S.C. § 1257. Most recently, developer's either seek variances accordance plat, avail itself facially procedure obtain compensation," meant premature. 21 comparison situations owners three preceding cases, received thereto. Nevertheless, yet receive "final, definitive position question." Electric, Comm'n, declined reach Constitution requires redress some records left us uncertain taken. Likewise, case, holdings courts below leave possibility permitted,8 thus again doubt antecedent 22 23 whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins REHNQUIST join III, dissenting. acknowledges "[b]ecause takings," ante, 348, avoids question—whether adequately stated claim—should answered negative. I disagree. consider, when correctly read, do remedial thrice resolve. Regional (1985); (1981); recognizes 352, 8, concludes: 26 Appeal, whose matters pleading respect, cf. 259-260, 5, 2140-2141, apparently labeled 'conclusionary' allegation futility, could Ordinances which, aught appears, allow proceed." 27 ignores county's conjunction behind actions deprive "which (a) economically infeasible, (b) prohibited law, (c) prevented appellees]." Fourth Amended Complaint, 46. disregards "That alone. my view, fairly read record below. Appellant's initial although designated "Agricultural Preserve Reserve" city. though lay outside boundaries, implemented relegating uses. Complaint Oct. 1977, pp. 9-12. Finally, asserted agriculturally impaired used purposes. 16. 29 appellees' accepted effectively rezoned variety nonagricultural explicitly zones codes. Mar. 30, 1978, 36655 (Cal.Super.Ct., County) 6-8. conclusion useless over renders [inverse action] demurrable." 8. 30 formed basis below, responded ruling asserting support allegation. 52-58. indicated "conclusionary," 272-277, 375-378, 28-31 aff'd grounds, brought result regulation.1 crucial denominated "conclusionary" feasible consistent zoning. categorize actions. 31 reviewing first judicata. summarized including code acted prevent entirely. 127-129. "[a]ny 129. Nowhere matter rejecting pleaded. And nowhere refer statement infeasibility 32 Having recited indicating them, holding, noted, compelled 130-132. Cal.3d, Cal.Rptr., P.2d, 28-31. 33 available, claim. "[p]ared [appellant] application." 132. observed situation unlike" acres building maximum constitute since face 262-263, 2142-2143; 277, 378, 31. Citing requested "does development." 133. 34 given absence expression disapproval futility state-law well Appeal's focus termed essence together analytically imply believed controlled terms determining stated. Specifically, concluding material stated, reapplication made, useless. 35 completed allegedly confiscatory pertinent County, 190-191, 3118-3119. 136-137, 2665-2666, (1978), supra, 2142-2143, considered actual decisionmaker; speculate restrictions imposed. Hodel Virginia Surface Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 264, 293-297, 2352, 2369-2371, 69 provisions properties susceptible exemption. procedures "[left] landowner] plat after obtaining variances." 193-194, 3120. 36 These recognize closely tied often ongoing process relevant decisions made. Given characteristics taking, requirement decisionmaker arrived inflicts actual, concrete injury." 193, Nothing suggests decisionmaker's explicit denials property-owner Nor suggest repeated pinpoint position. 37 Moreover, importing "final decision" analysis. sometimes factors applies manner applicable requirements denies application, explaining interpretation ordinance, barring made—even Although pursue reasonably avenues relief, need not, believe, patently fruitless measures. 38 reliance misplaced. overall (1) denial, (2) (3) ever able When purported reduce ignored critical distinction indication manner, here, futile. believe sufficiently property.2 39 Assuming decision, next complaint. Discerning involves separate inquiries: restricting affirmative, sufficient 40 long police-power rise impose severe. See, e.g., 2141; PruneYard Shopping Center Robins, 74, 83, 2035, 2041, 64 741 (1980); 174-175, 389-390, (1979); 65-66, 326-327, Central, 130-131, 36, 2662, 2663-2666, 36; (1958); 415-416, concluded: 41 "[A] him substantially attempt mandamus invalidate excessive violation Amendment He elect sue transmute power lawful paid." 273, 375, 28.3 42 addition inconsistent statements, BRENNAN dissent Gas, "[p]olice land-use can destroy enjoyment order promote good formal invasion From little condemned flooded, state, government's benefits flowing preservation equally great creating wildlife refuge increasing electricity production dam project floods logical, then, government acquisition title, occupancy, 'taking,' de facto domain, effects completely most interest 652-653, 1304-1305 (citations footnotes 44 agree Constitution. 45 resolution brings me more existence paid "good consideration," 43, Factual expectations certainly 136-138, 2665-2666. Consequently, taking. IV 46 injunctive person pay interim period time "took" rescinded amendment regulation.4 am agreement BRENNAN's discussion Gas. 653-660, 1304-1308. temporarily, deprivation amounts paid. If decides rescind amending reverse interim. "[I]t fair bear cost during entity's rescission it." 656-657, 1306-1307. rescinded. 47 constitutional admits problems administration insignificant. Aside already addressed measure shall deemed questions valuation procedure. latter, procedures, today notes, "[a] course resort piecemeal litigation otherwise unfair determination." Ante, 350, 7. former, constitutes context particularly meaty one, reflection unsettled should deter acting protect case. vacate remand views expressed. V 48 sum, substantive law. At very least, reading however plausible, sensible opinion. arguable ambiguity, does, withdraw chance stage. reasoning rather hypothesizes, precluded seeking explanation precise judgment. 49 joins, 50 WHITE best law; property; taking; Part surrounding due "interim" multifaceted difficult. them light provides "nor prohibition against Amendment. Chicago, B. Q.R. 166 226, 236, 239, 241, 581, 584, 585, 586, 979 (1897). 175 1, 3111, 623, 1289, (1981). "25. Plaintiff's purposes, notwithstanding designation suitability therefor, (i) lacked streets, condition resulting deliberate approve access; (ii) [P]roperty sanitary service, directly wrongful acts District alleged[;] (iii) supply, finding (in evidence proven sources supply thereof serve immediately adjacent areas[;] (iv) conditions attributable services." 51-52. California, "those pleaded admitted defendant's demurrer." Thompson Alameda, 741, 746, 167 70, 72, 614 728, 730 "However," admit contentions, deductions conclusions therein." Daar Yellow Cab Cal.2d 695, 713, 63 724, 737, 433 732, 745 (1967) Serrano Priest, 591, 96 601, 605, 487 1241, 1245 (1971); Chicago Title Ins. Great Western Financial Corp., 305, 327, 70 849, 863, 481, 495 (1968); Sych Insurance North America, 173 Cal.App.3d 321, 220 692, 695 Read Lynwood, 437, 442, 219 intermediate appellate jurisdictional "allegation [appellants'] 'have exhausted remedies' "; "while pleaded, therein. Appellants' them." Pan Pacific Properties, Inc. Santa Cruz, 81 251, 146 428, 432 Cf. Hecton People ex rel. Dept. Transportation, 58 653, 657, 230, 232 (1976) (same; damage). understand plead amounting condemnation." 116. WHITE's treats dicta second 355-356, rest treat alternative bases decision. 1983 claim, similarly "[e]ven Civil Rights Act case: "Plaintiff desires, mean other, Accordingly uncompensated 135. accept deciding purpose, 50. 60. 205-206, 3126 (STEVENS, concurring judgment); Dickinson, 331 745, 749, 1382, 1385, 1789 (1947). current complaint—as authoritatively construed Appeal—alleged contend along lines 159-home avert Rather, 60, 65. proceed. reluctantly concludes understanding "plausible" "sensible," insists "most law." Post, 363. Both upheld ground foreclosed. submission so, land. unwilling concede much: total productive possibly reconciled precluded, future futile, view necessarily courts, parties' briefs disclose permissible disposition settled supra; Brief Respondents 22306 (Cal.Ct.App., Third App.Dist., July 10, 1984), 27; Memorandum Points Authorities Support Demurrer Dec. 18, 1981), Clerk's Tr., 888-889, 912, 2, 914, neglected "expressly disapprove" deficient detail why, 357. Remarkably, implies complaint's fruitless, nonetheless file "useless" Whatever serve, futile reapplications contemplated Appeal. begin with, maintains, suggested Agins. contrary, relied illustrate there—as here—had "attempt[ed] land" "failed 132-133. 259-263, 2140-2142; implication meaningful dissent's supposition contradicted court's express futile: [appellees] Mr. Mrs. occupied opportunity build Victorian mansions residences, asked option nuclear powerplant. Rejection exceedingly grandiose plans logically ambitious unfavorable reviews. course, statements dispelling point. judicial remedies; judicata collateral attack Court; form "invasion cognizably right" alleged. 111, proved prevail merits. assuming rests rationale seemed proceed assumption available. 131. My somewhat inexact summary assume normal following limiting liability period. 658, 1307, (1981) (BRENNAN, dissenting). Of actually condemn permanent

Category: 3