from Rob McKenna, Washington State Attorney General
There may be times where the government does not intend to acquire property through condemnation, but the government action nonetheless has a significant impact on the value of property.
In some cases, the government may argue that its action has not taken or damaged private property, while the property owner argues that a taking has effectively occurred despite the fact that a formal condemnation process has not been instituted. This dispute may lead to an “inverse condemnation” claim, and the filing of a lawsuit against the government, in which the court will determine whether the government’s actions have damaged or taken property.
If a court determines that the government’s actions have effectively taken private property for some public purpose, it will award the payment of just compensation, together with the costs and attorneys fees associated with litigating that inverse condemnation claim.
Inverse condemnation cases generally fall into two categories: those involving physical occupation or damage to property; and those involving the impacts of regulation on property.
Like every other quotation from a longer document or conversation, this was taken “out of context”. To review the conext, you may download the original document from the attorney general’s website or read it below. It is an advisory memorandum to help state agencies avoid unconstitutional taking of private property. We encourage every shoreline homeowner and everyone involved in the SMP update process to read it. It will help our city avoid expensive legal conflicts in the future.
We talked about this issue last May, but it is important to keep it in mind.
0 Responses to “What is “unconstitutional taking” of private property?”