IOWA ASSUR. CORP. v. City of Indianola, Iowa
650 F.3d 1094
8th Cir.2011Background
- Watson leases a ~900 sq ft shop and adjacent parking lot in Indianola, Iowa for storing and repairing race cars, with up to three cars in the shop and up to three in the lot.
- Leased property is on commercially zoned land with uses including automotive services; Watson stores and repairs multiple race cars there.
- In response to complaints about appearance and noise, the City enacted a 2007 ordinance requiring figure eight and other racing cars to be enclosed by a fence when two or more vehicles are present.
- Watson sued in state court (later removed to federal court) alleging the ordinance effectuated an uncompensated regulatory taking by forcing fencing and reducing property value.
- In 2009 the City enacted Ordinance 1432, which largely mirrored the prior ordinance but specified fencing height and type, and Watson supplemented his complaint.
- The district court held in January 2010 that the ordinance did not effect a taking, applying the Penn Central framework; Watson appealed and the Eight Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Penn Central governs takings analysis | Watson argues Loretto/Nollan apply | City contends Penn Central governs regulatory takings | Penn Central governs; Loretto/Nollan not applied |
| Whether Ordinance 1432 constitutes a physical taking under Loretto | Ordinance 1432 is a permanent physical intrusion by fence | No physical invasion requirement; ordinance permits choice to continue use with fencing | Not a Loretto physical taking |
| Whether Nollan/Dolan land-use exaction analysis applies | Ordinance acts as an exaction conditioning use on fencing | Ordinance does not require dedication or public access as a condition of permit | Nollan/Dolan do not apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1982) (permanent physical invasion concept for taking claims)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (U.S. 2005) (framework for regulatory takings; Penn Central post-Lingle standard)
- Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (U.S. 1978) (three-factor Penn Central test for regulatory takings)
- Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (U.S. 1987) (land-use exactions requiring nexus and rough proportionality)
- Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (U.S. 1994) (exaction requirements clarified; nexus and proportionality)
- Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1992) ( acquiescence element in some regulatory takings analyses)
- FCC v. Florida Power Corp., 480 U.S. 245 (U.S. 1987) (Loretto framework referenced in takings discussions)