Summary

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council…

As for moratoria that prohibit all development, these do not have the lineage of permit and zoning requirements and thus it is less certain that property is acquired under the “implied limitation” of a moratorium prohibiting all development. Moreover, unlike a permit system in which it is expected that a project will be approved so long as certain conditions are satisfied, a moratorium that prohibits all uses is by definition contemplating a new land-use plan that would prohibit all uses.
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council…

For over half a decade petitioners were prohibited from building homes, or any other structures, on their land. Because the Takings Clause requires the government to pay compensation when it deprives owners of all economically viable use of their land, see Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) , and because a ban on all development lasting almost six years does not resemble any traditional land-use planning device, I dissent.
I “A court cannot determine whether a regulation has gone ’too far’ unless it knows how far the regulation goes.”
Source: Wikisource

Portrait of William Rehnquist William Rehnquist Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council…

Because the prohibition on development of nearly six years in this case cannot be said to resemble any “implied limitation” of state property law, it is a taking that requires compensation.
Lake Tahoe is a national treasure and I do not doubt that respondent’s efforts at preventing further degradation of the lake were made in good faith in furtherance of the public interest. But, as is the case with most governmental action that furthers the public interest, the Constitution requires that the costs and burdens be borne by the public at large, not by a few targeted citizens.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature