David Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms near Cha

Question

David Lucas paid $975,000 for two residential lots on the Isle of Palms near Charleston, South Carolina. He intended to build houses on them. Two years later, the South Carolina legislature passed a statute that prohibited building beyond a certain line, and Lucas's property fell in the prohibited zone. Lucas claimed that his land was now useless and that South Carolina owed him its value. Explain his claim. Should he win? 1. Under what amendment is the government sometimes allowed to take a citizen's private property? 2. The Fifth Amendment reads, in part, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." This means that . 3. David Lucas argues that the government is violating . 4. David Lucas still owns his two residential lots, why would South Carolina owe him money? 5. The government's best argument against owing Lucas any money is that

Explanation / Answer

1. Under the fifth amendment, the law of eminent domain applies, where a private property cannot be taken away by the government without providing the owner a just compensation.

2. Public use means the private property cannot be taken away by the government officials for their personal use. There should be some government activity helpful for all the public.

Just compensation means the market value of that property at thay time plus the other values like timber, crops, building etc.

3. Argument in favour of David Lucas-

He may argue that his property is being restricted because of the public use intended by the government, but in such restriction, he wasn't involved and there was no 'just compensation'.

4. State governments can definitely put restrictions on the use of the private properties by passing a statute. In this case, they haven't 'taken away' his property, they simply added it to the prohibited zone, hence, no compensation is to be given to David Lucas.

5. Government can argue that first of all the lots have not been taken away by the government for the public use, hence no question of public use. Additionally, it can say that according to certain height restriction laws, it can very well restrict the use of privatw property. Thirdly, it has passed a statute in this regard, so no question od owing money to such a person.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse D
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.