This morning, the Supreme Court of Virginia heard oral arguments (by telephone) in a case we've been following.
This is an inverse case that asks whether less than a total loss of access to a parcel could be taking -- did the owner plead enough to put the issue to a jury -- and is the government's mere invocation of a "police power" rationale to cut off access is enough to insulate it from the payment of compensation.
When Hooked proposed to develop its property, the City of Chesapeake closed Callison Drive, the street adjacent to Hooked's property after the neighbors complained. This cut off Hooked's direct access to Callison Drive, even though it still had access from and to its property from a second street.
The trial court dismissed (demurred) Hooked's inverse condemnation claim, concluding that the City was exercising its police power when it closed the street, and thus there was no taking as a matter of law. Hooked argued that Virginia property owners have a property right for direct access to adjacent roads, especially after the Virginia amended its constitution in 2012 to reflect that owners have the right to compensation for "lost access."
We thought this issue was important, and contributed to an amici brief supporting Hooked's appeal, arguing that the mere invocation of "police power" does not end the analysis. Read the brief and the briefs of the parties here.
