Court Opinion

ID: 9529213
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:48:51.074862+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:42.521506
License: Public Domain

Grosse, C.J.
(concurring) — I concur in the majority opinion, but question whether it is necessary to view Lucas4 as a prethreshold inquiry. First, if one equates a denial of all economically viable use of property as an infringement of *196a fundamental right of ownership then it follows that the Presbytery5 "threshold inquiry" has been satisfied and one moves to the second part of this State’s taking inquiry. As to this second part, where a denial of all economically viable use is involved, Lucas dictates that the "legitimate state interests" of Presbytery be those that can be equated to common law nuisance theoiy. To this extent Lucas requires a reexamination of a portion of Presbytery.
On the other hand, where the challenge is not a facial challenge but one pertaining to specific property, then it seems to me that the Presbytery analysis should apply, assuming that our Supreme Court intended that analysis to allow compensation in circumstances where there is less than a loss of all viable economic use.
In any event, my observations have no impact on the decision in this case and until our Supreme Court is faced with a situation requiring it to examine its taking analysis in light of Lucas, it may well be that the majority's approach is the most practical.
Reconsideration denied October 1, 1992.

 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Coun.,_U.S._, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992).

 Presbytery of Seattle v. King Cy., 114 Wn.2d 320, 787 P.2d 907, cert. denied, 498 U.S. 911, 112 L. Ed. 2d 238, 111 S. Ct. 284 (1990).