 |
|
"Novel" Constitutional Claims: Rent Control, Means-Ends Tests, and the Takings Clause |
|
|
S. Keith Garner
|
|
| Many commentators have criticized the due process roots of the "substantially
advance" test, a means-ends test, of current takings jurisprudence. This
Note revisits the issue in the context of rent control in Santa Monica
Beach, Ltd. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles. Employing the means-ends
test with deference to government actions, the Santa Monica Beach majority
concludes that Santa Monica's rent control program does not violate the
Takings Clause. Several dissenters, applying a less deferential standard
of review in takings claims, would have found that a taking had occurred.
This Note argues that the majority reached the right conclusion but erred
by applying a means-ends test in its just compensation analysis. Such a
test is doctrinally inconsistent with takings jurisprudence and potentially
expands government liability more than is constitutionally required. Ultimately,
as the concurring opinion suggests, the propriety of a means-ends test
in the analysis of takings claims must be resolved by the United States
Supreme Court, whose recent takings decisions suggest that a means-ends
test should not be part of just compensation analysis. This Note further
argues that, although rent control may be invalid if it violates a few
specific protections, it should as a general matter withstand
constitutional scrutiny. |
|
| |
|
Copyright
© 2000 by California Law Review, Inc. |
|