Bettendorf v. St. Croix County, 631 F.3d 421

Bettendorf owned property in St. Croix County initially zoned agricultural-residential.
In 1985 the County enacted Ordinance No. 108(85) re-zoning part of the parcel to commercial on a non-transferable, conditional basis.
The conditional zoning could revert to agricultural-residential upon Bettendorf’s death or transfer to a new owner.
Bettendorf sought declaratory judgment in 2004 to void the conditional language; Wisconsin Court of Appeals voided the ordinance; circuit court later rescinded the commercial zoning in 2007.
Bettendorf alleged federal and state constitutional takings and due process violations from the County’s rescission; district court granted summary judgment for the County; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
The decision addressed whether the County’s action after the appellate voiding of the ordinance violated takings or due process claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the County’s revocation of the commercial zoning after appellate voiding is a regulatory taking.	Bettendorf argues the retroactive removal of the commercial use deprived him of existing investments.	St. Croix County contends no taking occurred because the property retains agricultural/residential uses and the action complied with court orders.	No compensable taking under state and federal law.
Whether Bettendorf’s substantive due process claim is viable.	Bettendorf contends the County’s actions were arbitrary or unreasonable.	County argues the action followed a court decision and was reasonable.	Substantive due process claim fails.
Whether Bettendorf’s procedural due process rights were violated by the use of state-court litigation rather than county-code appeals.	Bettendorf claims inadequate process if state court review supplanted local administrative procedures.	State-court review provided adequate process and Bettendorf pursued a constitutionally sound path.	Procedural due process satisfied; no violation.

Pennsylvania Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (investor expectations and Penn Central balancing factors in takings analysis)
Concrete Pipe and Prods., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust, 508 U.S. 602 (1993) (three-part Penn Central framework for regulatory takings; investment-backed expectations)
Lingle v. Chevron, 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (substantive due process limits in regulatory actions by government)
Zealy v. City of Waukesha, 194 Wis.2d 701 (1995) (regulatory taking standard; context of non-final uses and vested rights)
Eternalist Foundation, Inc. v. City of Platteville, 225 Wis.2d 759 (1999) (Wisconsin takings standard; regulatory impact)
Lake Bluff Housing Partners v. City of South Milwaukee, 197 Wis.2d 157 (1995) (vested rights doctrine and zoning uses in Wisconsin)