Imagine you work hard your entire life to purchase your dream beach property with plans to build your beach home off of coastal South Carolina, only the properties you purchased to make your dreams come true, turn into a nightmare. What caused your dreams to change from delightful imaginings to legal nightmares? What where the politics in the conflicting sides of this legal nightmare, and the social interests? Finally, after a long fought legal battle does the meaning of “taking” significantly adjust our legal understanding of the term. In the Supreme Court Case Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council many of the questions proposed above can be answered. David Lucas purchased two vacant ocean front lots on a barrier island near Charleston,
…show more content…
South Carolina Coastal Council were the Lucas’ property was essentially a “taking” of his property for a public purpose and therefore according to the Fifth Amendment he should have been compensated by the state for the loss of his personal property. David Lucas never questioned the states exercise of their police powers only his Constitutional right to be compensated for the taking of his property value. The state argued that they didn’t physically take the Lucas’ ocean front property they merely changed the planned purpose of the property, for the environmental greater good of society, resulting in a loss of investment but not a loss of property and they are not legally responsible for the reduction of the properties’ value. The state also stated in their respondent, that the Lucas’s knew there would be restrictions placed on his land that would reduce the property’s value, and that he could not expect that he would be free from government restrictions in the future. The political involvement in this case is in the definition of a taking. Does the loss of property value due to environmental regulations consist of a taking or is a taking only apply to the physical loss of …show more content…
South Carolina Coastal Council. The Lucas’s petition states one of the issues, who should the burden of confiscatory environmental regulations fall on, society or individual landowners (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council). Is it the Lucas’ responsibility solely to protect the environment on Isle of Palm, or is it every individuals responsibility both morally, ethically and financially who lives in the state. Why can the Lucas’ neighbors be allowed to enjoy their beach property with dwellings yet the Lucas cannot because of regulations put into effect after the purchase of their property. In all fairness and in the pursuit of the Lucas’ right then their neighbors should also suffer the loss of the rights to make adjustments and improvements to their property suffering a substantial financial loss as well. The second societal issue is how much police power a state has in regulations that reduce an individual’s property values without protection from the Fifth Amendment. This issue is really what this case was determining in my opinion can the police powers of a state dictate through regulations regarding the environment cause one person’s personal property to become essentially valueless without having to compensate the landowner for their property. With this issue should just those individual landowners effected by the regulations be finically responsible for that environment when the
South Carolina Coastal Council were the Lucas’ property was essentially a “taking” of his property for a public purpose and therefore according to the Fifth Amendment he should have been compensated by the state for the loss of his personal property. David Lucas never questioned the states exercise of their police powers only his Constitutional right to be compensated for the taking of his property value. The state argued that they didn’t physically take the Lucas’ ocean front property they merely changed the planned purpose of the property, for the environmental greater good of society, resulting in a loss of investment but not a loss of property and they are not legally responsible for the reduction of the properties’ value. The state also stated in their respondent, that the Lucas’s knew there would be restrictions placed on his land that would reduce the property’s value, and that he could not expect that he would be free from government restrictions in the future. The political involvement in this case is in the definition of a taking. Does the loss of property value due to environmental regulations consist of a taking or is a taking only apply to the physical loss of …show more content…
South Carolina Coastal Council. The Lucas’s petition states one of the issues, who should the burden of confiscatory environmental regulations fall on, society or individual landowners (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council). Is it the Lucas’ responsibility solely to protect the environment on Isle of Palm, or is it every individuals responsibility both morally, ethically and financially who lives in the state. Why can the Lucas’ neighbors be allowed to enjoy their beach property with dwellings yet the Lucas cannot because of regulations put into effect after the purchase of their property. In all fairness and in the pursuit of the Lucas’ right then their neighbors should also suffer the loss of the rights to make adjustments and improvements to their property suffering a substantial financial loss as well. The second societal issue is how much police power a state has in regulations that reduce an individual’s property values without protection from the Fifth Amendment. This issue is really what this case was determining in my opinion can the police powers of a state dictate through regulations regarding the environment cause one person’s personal property to become essentially valueless without having to compensate the landowner for their property. With this issue should just those individual landowners effected by the regulations be finically responsible for that environment when the