Court Opinion

ID: 9528103
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:37:07.197153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:26:30.618625
License: Public Domain

FADELEY, J.,
specially concurring.
The only issue in this case is whether an ordinance of the City of Cannon Beach “takes” the residential real property of petitioners. Petitioners contend only that their property is taken without just compensation in violation of the takings component of the Fifth Amendment that applies to state and city government through the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
The city’s comprehensive plan states that no additional land shall be zoned RM (residential-motel). The city’s planning commission found that permitting residential housing to be used and rented as if the houses were motels drove up the price of residences in Cannon Beach, thereby contravening an applicable land use goal that requires each city’s comprehensive plan to permanently provide an adequate supply of affordable housing.
The property involved is already developed as residential housing. That was its character and use before the ordinance was enacted. It retains that character and permitted use after enactment of the challenged ordinance.
I write separately because I do not consider that federal cases involving undeveloped property are controlling authority here, yet the lead opinion relies on them in part. The “any-viable-economic use” standard touted in undeveloped property cases does not apply in this case. Other standards do.
No physical invasion or easement is involved, nor are the owners compelled to permit a governmentally imposed use of their property. No preexisting use for residential rental purposes is terminated, albeit the level of rental income very likely has been reduced. There is no claim that the government is planning to use the property. The effect of laws reducing rental income has been held by the Supreme Court *348of the United States to be no taking, even when combined with other laws interfering with an owner’s unfettered use of property. Yee v. City of Escondido, Cal., 503 US_, 112 S Ct 1522, 118 L Ed 2d 153 (1992).
Therefore, I join in the result reached on the federal question before the court.