Is RANRA Constitutional?
06.01.09 8:29 AMTennessee residents have questioned whether the proposed “Rural, Agricultural and Natural Resources Act” (RANRA) would amount to a compensable taking of property under Article I, Section 21 of the Tennessee Constitution. That section provides that “no man’s particular services shall be demanded, or property taken, or applied to public use, without the consent of his representatives, or without just compensation being made therefore.”
A compensable taking may be found where a property owner is forced to suffer a permanent physical occupation of his property or is deprived of all economically viable use of his property; however, a land use law that adversely affects economic values may be enacted without resulting in a taking where its intended purpose is to “enhance the quality of life by preserving the character and desirable aesthetic features” of an area. Of course, any regulatory taking is subject to a challenge by affected residents.
In evaluating a regulatory takings challenge, most courts rely on the three-part test outlined in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, a landmark United States Supreme Court decision. The court will consider (a) the character of the government’s action, i.e. the type of intrusion, (b) the economic impact of the regulation on the property owner, and (c) the degree to which the regulation interfered with the owner’s reasonable investment-backed expectations.
In light of this three part-test, it is the opinion of the Tennessee Attorney General that RANRA provisions limiting development in predominantly rural communities, as long as those communities meet certain specified standards, are, on their face, constitutionally permissible.
Leave a Comment
No comments yet. You should leave one!