Background Information
In 1986, David H. Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina barrier island, intending to build single family homes such as those on the immediately adjacent parcels. During that time, the lots weren’t subject to the State’s coastal zone building permit requirements. In 1988, the state legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. This act prohibited Lucas from building any permanent habitable structures in his parcels. David decided to file a lawsuit against the respondent state agency, stating that he understands that the Act may have been a lawful exercise but he thinks that the Act prohibits him from his “economically viable use” of his property and …show more content…
The land must be important ecologically or possess other coastal conservation values, such as historic features, scenic views, or recreational opportunities to be considered a threat. CELCP is designed to further the following goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act:
Protect coastal ecosystems, wetlands, corals, and natural shorelines
Preserve natural features that provide storm protection, such as dunes and barrier islands
Minimize loss of life and property by directing development out of high-risk areas
Safeguard coastal water quality
Preserve historic, cultural, and archaeological features
Protect aesthetic coastal features and scenic vistas
Provide opportunities for public access to the …show more content…
That the state's intent was only to "minimize damage to coastal areas" and to "prevent serious injury to the community"; thus, he concluded that the South Carolina Supreme Court was correct in finding that no taking had occurred. Justice Blackmun reasoned that the state had "full power to prohibit an owner's use of property if it is harmful to the public." Thus, economic loss to an owner could not prevail over the interest of government to restrict harmful use of real estate.
Justice Stevens wrote a separate opinion supporting the dissenting opinion. He ultimately concluded that the BMA had no other intention than to protect the beach/dune system. Further, since the substantial purpose of South Carolina's Legislature was within the limits of restricting land use for general public safety, the BMA did not amount to a property taking and compensation was not
In 1986, David H. Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms in Charleston County, South Carolina barrier island, intending to build single family homes such as those on the immediately adjacent parcels. During that time, the lots weren’t subject to the State’s coastal zone building permit requirements. In 1988, the state legislature enacted the Beachfront Management Act. This act prohibited Lucas from building any permanent habitable structures in his parcels. David decided to file a lawsuit against the respondent state agency, stating that he understands that the Act may have been a lawful exercise but he thinks that the Act prohibits him from his “economically viable use” of his property and …show more content…
The land must be important ecologically or possess other coastal conservation values, such as historic features, scenic views, or recreational opportunities to be considered a threat. CELCP is designed to further the following goals of the Coastal Zone Management Act:
Protect coastal ecosystems, wetlands, corals, and natural shorelines
Preserve natural features that provide storm protection, such as dunes and barrier islands
Minimize loss of life and property by directing development out of high-risk areas
Safeguard coastal water quality
Preserve historic, cultural, and archaeological features
Protect aesthetic coastal features and scenic vistas
Provide opportunities for public access to the …show more content…
That the state's intent was only to "minimize damage to coastal areas" and to "prevent serious injury to the community"; thus, he concluded that the South Carolina Supreme Court was correct in finding that no taking had occurred. Justice Blackmun reasoned that the state had "full power to prohibit an owner's use of property if it is harmful to the public." Thus, economic loss to an owner could not prevail over the interest of government to restrict harmful use of real estate.
Justice Stevens wrote a separate opinion supporting the dissenting opinion. He ultimately concluded that the BMA had no other intention than to protect the beach/dune system. Further, since the substantial purpose of South Carolina's Legislature was within the limits of restricting land use for general public safety, the BMA did not amount to a property taking and compensation was not