Court Opinion

ID: 9570648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:24:57.6969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:35.217942
License: Public Domain

Wright, C.J.
(concurring)—I concur in the majority opinion and have signed the same. The balancing test (i.e., "the balancing of the public interest in regulating the use of private property against the interests of private landowners not to be encumbered by restrictions on the use of their property.") is applicable and valid in this case. I do want, however, to make it absolutely clear that the balancing test does have limits. There is, and must be, a point beyond which the interference with the rights of property ownership may not constitutionally go without just compensation regardless of the public interest. As we said in Maple Leaf *217Investors, Inc. v. Department of Ecology, 88 Wn.2d 726, 731, 565 P.2d 1162 (1977), "There is no single, simple test to use in dealing with the taking issue. The court, guided by broad general principles, must decide each case on its own facts." (Citations omitted.)
Hicks, J., concurs with Wright, C.J.