Opinion ID: 2630519
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The taking claim is denied.

Text: BHA argues that the taking of private property in this case is the collection of that part of the transfer fee over and above what should reasonably be charged as a transfer fee. Both the Idaho Constitution and United States Constitution provide that if private property is taken for a public use, just compensation must be given. Idaho Const. art. I, § 14; U.S. Const. amend. V. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole. Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49, 80 S.Ct. 1563, 1569, 4 L.Ed.2d 1554, 1561 (1960). Takings clause analysis requires the Court to determine whether justice and fairness require compensation for an economic injury caused by the government. Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164, 174-75, 100 S.Ct. at 390-91, 62 L.Ed.2d 332, 342-43 (1979). The United States Supreme Court has examined the `taking' question by engaging in essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified several factorssuch as the economic impact of the regulation, its interference with reasonable investment backed expectations, and the character of the governmental actionthat have particular significance. Kaiser Aetna, 444 U.S. at 175, 100 S.Ct. at 390-91, 62 L.Ed.2d at 343. The parties dispute whether BHA has a valid property interest in the transfer fee under the Takings Clause. BHA says that it has a valid economic property interest, citing Coeur d'Alene Garbage Service v. Coeur d'Alene, 114 Idaho 588, 759 P.2d 879 (1988). In that case, the Court held that the right to conduct business is property, and found that Coeur d'Alene Garbage Service had a valid property interest in the business it was conducting in the areas annexed by the city of Coeur d'Alene. Id. at 591, 759 P.2d at 882. However, BHA's claim in this case is that the money taken in excess of a reasonable transfer fee is the property that was in fact taken; BHA does not appear to be arguing that the license itself is property, making Coeur d'Alene inapplicable. In addition, that case did not involve the regulation of liquor, which regulation is performed under broader police powers. In any event, this Court has held that a liquor license is not a right of property, implying that it is not property in any constitutional sense: A liquor license is simply the grant or permission under governmental authority to the licensee to engage in the business of selling liquor. Such a license is a temporary permit to do that which would otherwise be unlawful; it is a privilege rather than a natural right and is personal to the licensee; it is neither a right of property nor a contract, or a contract right. Nampa Lodge No. 1389 v. Smylie, 71 Idaho 212, 215-16, 229 P.2d 991, 993 (1951). This Court has also held, however, that a liquor license is a right of property as between a licensee and third persons in that it has attributes of value and assignability. Weller v. Hopper, 85 Idaho 386, 394, 379 P.2d 792, 797 (1963). The primary argument of BHA is that the money in excess of a reasonable transfer fee is a taking. BHA asserts that it is undisputed that money is property for which they would have a property interest. However, the money in this case is associated with the permit, and the permit is granted as a privilege rather than by right according to this Court. While not binding, the reasoning of the California Supreme Court is instructive: To put the matter simply, the taking of money is different, under the Fifth Amendment, from the taking of real or personal property. The imposition of various monetary exactionstaxes, special assessments, and user feeshas been accorded substantial judicial deference. San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City and County of San Francisco, 27 Cal.4th 643, 117 Cal.Rptr.2d 269, 41 P.3d 87, 106 (2002) (quoting Ehrlich v. City of Culver City, 12 Cal.4th 854, 50 Cal.Rptr.2d 242, 911 P.2d 429, 454-55 (1996) (conc. opn. of Mosk, J.)). In San Remo Hotel, the Court was referring specifically to money exacted by property regulations, but the reasoning is analogous to this case. Deference is given to the State in its use of the police power in this case regarding the transfer fee. There is no unconstitutional taking under either the Idaho or United States Constitution.