A blow for property rights

A group of Lake Tahoe landowners will strike a blow for property owners across the nation -- a blow dulled by almost 20 years of litigation -- if the U.S. Supreme Court rules properly that they should be compensated for the temporary "taking" of their land.

The case, on which oral arguments were heard Monday, involves hundreds of people who owned property on Lake Tahoe in the early 1980s when the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency placed a moratorium on building while it figured out the best way to protect the lake from the harm being caused by rapid growth.

It is a classic example of broad public interests vs. individual property rights.

As Justice Stephen Breyer said Monday, "The justification is excellent -- saving Lake Tahoe."

But no one is arguing the TRPA shouldn't have planned and developed regulations for the preservation of the jewel of the Sierra Nevada. Few would argue against the greater good such regulations can accomplish in protecting the environment.

What we can argue -- and what the Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council's members have been arguing all along -- is that a government can't deprive landowners of the use of their property, even temporarily, without just compensation.

The TRPA prevailed in appellate court because judges determined the "taking" wasn't permanent, and therefore owners still had the value of their land. But the counter argument is far more compelling. It was summarized by attorney Michael Becker on Monday this way: "It's as if I took away your car for a year and parked it in a garage. You still would have been without the use of that car for a year."

A dissenting opinion at the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals noted "The requirement of just compensation ensures that the few are not forced to bear the cost of uses that benefit the many."

By imposing a moratorium for three years while it formulated a plan, the TRPA did exactly that. It did not "take" the land permanently, but it certainly deprived the owners, who should be fairly compensated.

Governments need not be prohibited from enacting zoning ordinances or land-use regulations, nor in setting moratoriums while they decide what to do. They should, however, be prepared to pay for the consequences.

The many can, indeed, benefit from solid land-use planning. The few shouldn't suffer the expense on their behalf, however.