Environmental Law Essay
& # 8211 ; Nollan Vs. CCC Essay, Research PaperEnvironmental LawNollan vs. CCCAbstraction of:483 U.S. 825, 97 L. Ed.2d 677James Patrick Nollan, etuxor, AppellantV.
California CoastalCommission.Case Definition:The instance is Nollan versus the California Coastal Commission. TheNollans were the appellates against a determination made by the CaliforniaCoastal Commission ( CCC ) .
The Nollans had been renting a belongings on the California seashore withwhich they had an option to purchase. The belongings lies straight at the pesof the Pacific Ocean and is a premier piece of existent estate on theCalifornia Coast. The belongings had been used by the Nollans to lease outduring the summer months to vacationists. At the terminal of the Nollans?rental they took the option to buy the land and began fixing forthe footings of purchase by the old land proprietor.
Among those footings wasthe razing of the little deteriorating cottage that the Nollans hadbeen renting. The Nollans had planned to spread out the construction from thelittle cottage that it was to a three sleeping room house more complimentaryto the environing places and their demands. In order to get down devastationof the belongings and get down reconstructing the site the Nollans had to procurea license from the California Coastal Commission. Upon subjecting thelicense application, the CCC found that the license should be granted onthe status that the Nollans provide public entree to the beach and tothe local county park, which lay adjacent to the belongings. Thisproviso called for the Nollans to utilize a part of their land to beused as a public paseo to the beach and park. The Nollans protestedto the status, but the CCC overruled the expostulation and granted thelicense with the status intact.Case Decision:The Nollans filed a request to the Ventura County Superior Courtinquiring that the status to provide easement be removed from theirlicense.
The Nollans? statement was that there was non adequate grounds tosupport the developments restricting of public entree to the beach. Thestatement was agreed upon by the tribunal and the instance was remanded to theCalifornia Coastal Commission for a full evidentiary hearing on theissue of public entree to the beach.The CCC held a populace hearing which led to further factual findingswhich reaffirmed the demand for the status. The CCC? s statement wasthat the edifice of the new construction would restrict position of the ocean,and hence limit entree to the populace who had full rights to utilize thebeach. To counterbalance for the restrictions on the public the Nollanswould hold to supply entree to the beach from their Property. The CCCbesides noted that all of the other developments on the same piece of land of landhad been conditioned likewise in holding to supply public entree to theocean.The Nollans filed a auxiliary request for a writ of administrativemandamus ( a writ that would order a public functionary or organic structure to followwith a specified responsibility issued by a superior tribunal ) . The Nollans statementwas that the license status violated the Takings Clause in the VAmendment, and besides in the XIV Amendment of the Constitution.
The tribunal agreed that the administrative record did non supply for indemoing the being of inauspicious impact on the populaces? entree to theocean. The tribunal granted the writ of mandamus, and directed that thepublic entree status be removed from the license.The CCC appealed the instance in the California Court of Appeal and won thedetermination. The Court of Appeal found an mistake in the Supreme Courtsreading of the Coastal Act which mandates public entree to anyclass of developments on the seashore. The Court of Appeal besides foundthat the Takings claim was unsubstantiated by the Nollans. The licensestatus did take from the value of the land, but did non curtail themof sensible usage of their belongings.The Nollans so appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Thestatement made by the Nollans continued to go around around the ReturnsClause in the V Amendment. The Supreme Court found that the demandof the license merely put a limitation on the usage of the belongings and nona? taking? of the belongings. The Supreme Court besides held the CaliforniaState Constitution to hold standing, and upheld the opinion made by theCourt of Appeals.Reasoning for Decision:I believe that the ground the Supreme Court decided as it did was thatits reading of the California State Constitution provided for theauthorization of the CCC? s license ordinance. The portion within the provincesfundamental law says that entree to any navigable Waterss shall non belimited by any individual when it is required for any public intent. The? navigable H2O? clause infers the existent usage of the H2O and non thebeach itself.
The Supreme Court did non desire to do a instance of this forstep ining in provinces? fundamental laws is awful concern ; and there wasnon a large trade refering the linguistic communication of the jurisprudence from either of theparties. I think that a similar instance could be argued assailing theFundamental law of the State of California refering the navigable Waterssclause. I would still hold to hold with the CCC? s license status ofleting public entree to the beach, because I like the beach and am inno place to buy land surrounding it so I need entree.349
