Here’s one from the Connecticut Appellate Court which combines two of our favorite geeky topics: takings and muni law.
In Turn of River Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. City of Stamford, No. AC 36468 (Sep. 15, 2015), the court concluded it was not a violation of the Takings Clause for the voters of the city to amend their charter to consolidate the city’s six fire departments (the city-operated Fire and Rescue Department, and five independent volunteer fire departments) into a single city department, commanded by a city-employed official, the fire chief.
After amendment of the charter, one of the volunteer departments sued, alleging among other things a takings claim: “Specifically, they claim that the amendments constitute a per se regulatory taking because they deprive Long Ridge of all economically beneficial use of its property by forcing it to either participate in the Stamford Fire Department or cease operating as a fire department.” Slip op. at 11. The (former) Chief of the volunteer department also claimed that the charter amendment took his contractual property.
Applying the per se Lucas test, the appellate court rejected the arguments, holding that the volunteer company had no statutory right to provide municipal fire services, and “[I]ts authority derives entirely from the city’s municipal powers.” Slip op. at 12. Thus, the volunteer department did not possess the requisite property to support a takings claim. Yes, the city did allow the volunteer department to operate as such for decades, but this was just municipal grace and didn’t create a property right to keep doing so.
Even assuming the volunteer company possessed a property right to keep operating, it wasn’t like the new municipal regime prohibited the volunteers from continuing to provide fire services — they just were required to do so under the auspices of the new Stamford Fire Department and Fire Chief. Yes, the volunteers lost the total autonomy they previously apparently enjoyed, but that didn’t amount to much in the eyes of the court because it “is a far cry from a complete deprivation of all economically beneficial or productive use of their property.” Slip op. at 12. One can be a takings hawk and still see how a unified city fire department is a pretty good idea, even if the former system divided up the city by area.
The court also made short work of the (former) volunteer Chief’s claim that his contract with the volunteer department had been taken. Same analysis as above, Chief: you still can be the commander of the volunteers, you just have to do it under the supervision of the new Stamford Fire Chief. And that’s not enough of a deprivation to equal a Lucas wipeout.
Turn of River Fire Dep’t, Inc. v. City of Stamford, No. AC 36468 (Conn. App. Sep. 15, 2015)