Boerne-Flores settlement -Reply
bfudenbe at LAW.MIAMI.EDU
Fri Aug 22 11:50:43 PDT 1997
Forgive me for butting in. Apparently, the State was required to buy the
two adjacent lots from Mr. Lucas for approximately $1 million (because the
state had completely deprived Lucas of all value, it was forced to take
title via eminent domain). Then the state agreed to sell the land to a
developer for $785,000. When a neighbor who wanted to maintain his
own unimpaired view offered to buy one lot for $315,000, and keep it
undeveloped, the state rejected the offer.
This history is usually read as indicating how inefficient the regulation
was: The state was willing to inflict a loss on Lucas of about $500,000 a
lot in order to keep the land undeveloped, but wouldn't accept a $77,000
loss to keep a lot undeveloped if the money came from the state treasury.
But I am not sure how strong the above argument actually is. I would
argue that there is simply no point in keeping one lot in all of South
Carolina undeveloped. A comprehensive scheme limiting development might
have some chance of helping to maintain threatened marine life and to prevent
beach erosion; keeping one lot undeveloped does not. Thus, once the
comprehensive zoning scheme was (in effect) invalidated by the requirement
of compensation, the entire dynamics change.
Brooks R. Fudenberg
University of Miami School of Law
On Fri, 22 Aug 1997, Michael McConnell wrote:
> I realize it is off topic, but could Bob Destro tell us
> what, precisely, happened to Mr. Lucas's land after the
> Supreme Court decision?
> -- Michael McConnell (U of Utah)
More information about the Religionlaw