Here's a recently-filed cert petition involving property in the Florida Keys. The city allegedly downzoned the property to virtual worthlessness, but the lower courts concluded that it was not a Lucas take because the owners could still camp on the land, and the city gave them something called "ROGO points."
Which reminds of us the science-fiction trope of "credits" instead of money. You can see why we find the case interesting, no?
Here are the Questions Presented:
When Gordon and Molly Beyer purchased the nearly nine-acre Bamboo Key in Monroe County, Florida, zoning rules allowed them to put one residential home on each acre. In 1996, the local government adopted a Comprehensive Plan that deemed Bamboo Key a “bird rookery.” The only allowable use for the property became temporary camping. The Beyers challenged the application of this zoning change to their property; the courts concluded no taking occurred because the Beyers could camp on the island and because they received sixteen “ROGO points,” nonmonetary credits which the Beyers could apply toward a nonguaranteed permit for possible future development akin to transferable development rights. According to the courts, the credits plus the ability to camp met their reasonable economic expectations for the property.The questions presented are:1. Does the government unconstitutionally effect a total take of property when it denies all economically viable uses of land, but provides the owner with nonmonetary credits that have potential economic value?2. If a total take has not occurred, then does the award of nonmonetary credits affect the determination of whether the government effected a Penn Central taking at all, or should the courts weigh the award of nonmonetary credits only when considering whether the government awarded just compensation for a taking?
Stay tuned, of course.
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Ganson v. City of Marathon, No. ___ (filed Sep. 8, 2017) by RHT on Scribd
