David Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council

1
David Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council

• Blown Away by the Court

2

Hurricane Activity in South Carolina

• 1
• 0
• 1974 0
• 1975 1
• 1976 2
• 1977 1
• 1978 0
• 1979 1
• 1980 0
• 1981 1
• 1982 0
• 1983 0
• 1984 1
• 1985 1
• 1986 2
• 1987 0
• 1988 0
• 1989 Hugo

3
Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972
Among other provisions . . . .
Required States to adopt coastal management
polices as a condition for availability of
Federal (coastal) flood insurance
As South Carolina was having a lot of coastal
development, the availability of federal flood
insurance was important
4
Unless the state of South Carolina adopted a
coastal management plan, no (coastal) flood
insurance would be available. As time was
running out . . . . . . Beach Front
Management Act appears
5
(No Transcript)
6
They seemed to sense what was coming Hurricane
Hugo!
. . . . .
7
The Lucas Property
Lucas Lot 1
Lucas Lot 2
8
(No Transcript)
9
SC Supreme Court

• The Lucas construction would be a nuisance, and
  since there is no right to create a nuisance,
  there is no compensation for loss of that right.
• Citing Muggler v Kansas

10
US Supreme Court

• SC stipulated that Lucas did
• not have any beneficial use
• of the property
• When the owner of real property has been
  called upon to sacrifice all economically
  beneficial uses in the name of the common good,
  that is, to leave his property economically idle,
  he has suffered a taking.

11
Beachfront Management Act

• "The General Assembly finds that
•  
• "(4) . . . Development unwisely has been sited
  too close to the beach/dune system. This type
  of development has jeopardized the stability of
  the beach/dune system, accelerated erosion, and
  endangered adjacent property. It is in both the
  public and private interests to protect the
  system from this unwise development.

12
Scalia . . .

• To win its case, respondent cannot simply
  proffer the legislature's declaration that the
  uses Lucas desires are inconsistent with the
  public interest, or the conclusory assertion that
  they violate a common-law maxim.
• South Carolina must identify background
  principles of nuisance and property law that
  prohibit the uses Lucas now intends in the
  property's present circumstances.