Source: https://macomberlaw.com/land-use-and-zoning/idaho-state-bar-annual-meeting-2013-police-power-land-use/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 16:14:35+00:00

Document:
•Macomber: Context of the exercise of police power by cities and counties under Idaho Code §67-6501, et. seq. (LLUPA) – plus, LLUPA keys.
•Weeks: The boundary between takings jurisprudence and local ordinances within the legal structure.
•Braden: Discussion of bills introduced and passed in the 2013 Idaho Legislative Session affecting LLUPA.
•Idaho Constitution: “Any county or incorporated city or town may make and enforce, within its limits, all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are not in conflict with its charter or with the general laws.” Ciszek v. Kootenai County Bd. of Com’rs, 254 P.3d 24, 32, 151 Idaho 123, 131 (2011); citing Idaho Const. Art. XII, § 2.
•“The Legislature has stated an intent that decision-making under LLUPA should be founded upon sound reason and practical application of recognized principles of law … with an emphasis on fundamental fairness and the essentials of reasoned ecision-making.” Ciszek, 254 P.3d at 32, 151 Idaho at 131; citing I.C. § 67-6535(3).
certain inalienable rights, among which are enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property; pursuing happiness and securing safety. •Note: No inalienable right to USE property!
•“The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, provides that ‘private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation.’” City of Coeur D’Alene v.m Simpson, 136 P.3d 310, 313, 142 Idaho 839, 842 (2006).
•“Most regulatory takings claims are of the non-categorical type, which have been analyzed under rules set out by the United States Supreme Court in Penn Central. A non-categorical analysis is an ‘ad hoc, factual inquir[y]’ that considers (1) the economic impact of the regulation; (2) the extent to which the regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations; and (3) the character of the governmental action.” Simpson, 136 P.3d at 318, 142 Idaho at 847; citing Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 124, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659 (1978).
•“With regard to a non-categorical taking, the owner must show ‘the magnitude of a regulation’s economic impact and the degree to which it interferes with legitimate property interests.’” Simpson, 136 P.3d at 325, 142 Idaho at 853; citing Lingle v. Chevron USA, 544 U.S. 528, 540, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 (2005).
•Edmund Burke v. Jean-Jacques Rousseau: What is the social contract?
in France, p. 110 (Arlington House, 1955) (1790).
History of the Common Law, p. 558, et seq. (Little, Brown & Co., 5th Ed.
instant cutover to a new regime – there is no blank slate!
The American Economic Review, Vol. 35, Iss. 4 (1945).
in the adopted comprehensive plan.
* 2013 Legisl. Sess. Senate Bill No. 1138, as amended, eff. Jul. 1, 2013.
1301 through 50-1329, Idaho Code.
be taken for public use, without just compensation.’” City of Coeur D’Alene v.
Simpson, 136 P.3d 310, 313, 142 Idaho 839, 842 (2006).
analyzed under rules set out by the United States Supreme Court in Penn Central.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, 544 U.S. 528, 540, 125 S.Ct. 2074, 2082 (2005).
construction: “plain, usual and ordinary meaning,” etc.

References: §67
 v. 
 § 2
 § 67
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v.