
                         THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
                 Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SATURDAY, June 25, 1994                    TAG: 9406250235 
SECTION: FRONT                     PAGE: A5    EDITION: FINAL  
SOURCE: KNIGHT-RIDDER NEWS SERVICE 
DATELINE: 940625                                 LENGTH: WASHINGTON

COURT AFFIRMS PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS \

{LEAD} In what may be the most significant victory for property rights in decades, the Supreme Court on Friday limited the power of governments to force property owners to give up land for public purposes.

The 5-4 decision, which split the court along philosophical grounds, will have broad application throughout the nation.

{REST} Governments at all levels require people seeking to develop their property toallow some of their land to be used for such public purposes as sidewalks, parks, open spaces, flood control, bicycle paths, greenways, streets, sewers and schools.

While recognizing the validity of land-use regulations, the court declared that cities, counties and other government agencies now must surmount a new hurdle.

They must show a ``rough proportionality'' between the harm caused by a proposed development and the public benefit expected from the requirements imposed by the government, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for a conservative majority. Rehnquist added, however, that ``no precise mathematical calculation is required.''

It remains for lower courts to apply that principle to individual disputes in the unending struggle between community values and private property rights.

Standards vary from one state to another. In some places, they already satisfy the new constitutional test, but in others they are ``too lax'' to adequately protect property owners, Rehnquist said.

Cities will react by refusing to grant building permits to control growth, increasing fees to cover the cost of the impact of development, or making more complete studies to pass the ``rough proportionality'' test, said Timothy Ramis, who represented Tigard, Ore., the city involved in the Supreme Court case.

The Supreme Court ruling was a posthumous victory for John Dolan, a feisty businessman who stubbornly refused to go along with conditions imposed on his property on Main Street in Tigard, a fast-growing suburb of Portland, Ore.

Dolan, the late owner of A-Boy Electric & Plumbing Supply, proposed to tear down his store, put up a building nearly twice its size and pave a 39-space parking lot.

City officials told him he could do so only if he turned over about 10 percent of his lot for use as a pedestrian-bike path and as open public land beside a creek to prevent flooding. But Dolan died of leukemia and his widow Florence, 74, continued the battle.

by CNB