Fighting Regulatory Takings
In 1991, Santini’s fully permitted, ongoing residential development was designated as one of three potential sites in Connecticut for a hazardous waste facility. Not surprisingly, during the time it was so designated, Santini was not able to sell a single home or lot in his development. Indeed, because he was unable to sell any property, he was unable to continue the project. After the designation was rescinded, Santini sought just compensation for a temporary regulatory taking. The Superior Court ruled that there had been no taking because the designation was "mere planning" by the government. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. Santini petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision. NELF filed an amicus brief in its own name, urging the Court to take the case and reject the exclusion of "mere planning" from Fifth Amendment scrutiny. The Court denied the petition.
In 1991, Santini’s fully permitted, ongoing residential development was designated as one of three potential sites in Connecticut for a hazardous waste facility. Not surprisingly, during the time it was so designated, Santini was not able to sell a single home or lot in his development. Indeed, because he was unable to sell any property, he was unable to continue the project. After the designation was rescinded, Santini sought just compensation for a temporary regulatory taking. The Superior Court ruled that there had been no taking because the designation was "mere planning" by the government. The Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed. Santini petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review that decision. NELF filed an amicus brief in its own name, urging the Court to take the case and reject the exclusion of "mere planning" from Fifth Amendment scrutiny. The Court denied the petition.
RSS Feed
