Question 1: Is this a regulatory taking? (no) Roberta Smith’s claim that the new riparian buffer regulation constitutes a regulatory taking for which she is entitled compensation is unfounded, given the common law in the State of New Columbia thus far. Firstly, the elimination of 4 out of 100 acres is far from a “Lucas” taking, in which compensation is required. Next, supplying farming rights under powerlines mirrors the transferable development rights that allowed Penn Central to fall in favor of the government. For these reasons, the Court will rule in favor of the State of New Columbia’s regulation. While the fact pattern in Lucas is surprisingly similar to that of Mrs. Smith’s case (concerns over property use near water), the Court will end up ruling differently in her case. This is because Lucas won his case on the premise that 100% of his land became economically useless (a “Lucas” taking). On the contrary, Mrs. Smith is losing only 4% of her land, meaning her case cannot be seen as a regulatory taking of that type.…show more content… This means that Mrs. Smith may choose to use or sell this land, similar to the vertical rights given to Penn Central. The Court has, and will, rule this as fair, negating any compensation she may feel entitled to. In conclusion, Roberta Smith is mistaken in her claim that she is entitled to just compensation. Although Penn Central determined that regulatory cases be decided ad hoc, this is an easy case to judge given previously decided cases in the State of New
