Suppose that Kim wants to build a new fence around her prope

Suppose that Kim wants to build a new fence around her property, but to do so she needs permission from the permit commission. Building the fence will make the property worth an extra $2000 to her. However, it will mean that the public?s view of her prize - winning rose garden is blocked, costing the public $1000 in value. If she installed a shorter fence, she will only get $1500 in value from her fence, but the public will now only lose $500 from the fence. (This is mitigation of the harm.) Alternatively, the commission suggests that she can build a nice new gazebo at the park (but can build the fence as high as she likes), thus offsetting the harm. The gazebo benefits the public $600 and costs Kim $300. The commission considers only the public benefit, not counting Kim. (a) Suppose instead the commission demanded that she build a pavilion at the park that benefits the public $1200 and costs Kim $800 in order to get the building permit. Would Kim do it? (b) So why did the court hold the way it did in Nollan?

Solution

a) Kim will refuse to build the pavillion at the park.

b) The California Coastal Commission granted a permit to appellants to replace a small bungalow on their beachfront lot with a larger house upon the condition that they allow the public an easement to pass across their beach, which was located between two public beaches. The County Superior Court granted appellants a writ of administrative mandamus and directed that the permit condition be struck. However, the State Court of Appeal reversed, ruling that imposition of the condition did not violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Held: