Dolan v. City of Tigard
Dolan v. City of Tigard is a landmark Supreme Court case concerning land use and the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case arose when Florence Dolan sought a building permit to expand her plumbing and electrical supply store in Tigard, Oregon. The city conditioned the permit approval on Dolan dedicating a portion of her property for a public greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway, citing land management goals. Dolan contended that this requirement amounted to a taking of her private property without just compensation. The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, emphasized that the city must demonstrate a "rough proportionality" between the permit requirements and the specific impacts of the proposed development. The majority opinion, led by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, found that the city failed to establish a sufficient relationship between Dolan's project and the land dedication demands. The dissenting opinion raised concerns about the burden of proof placed on municipalities, arguing this could hinder effective land-use planning. This case is significant for its implications on property rights, local government authority, and the balance between development and public interests.
Dolan v. City of Tigard
Date: June 24, 1994
Citation: 512 U.S. 374
Issue: Takings
Significance: The Supreme Court held that the government may not attach conditions to building permits that result in the taking of private property without just compensation, in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Florence Dolan applied for a building permit to expand her plumbing and electrical supply store in Tigard, Oregon. As part of a land-management program, the city refused to issue the permit unless she dedicated 10 percent of her land for two purposes: a public greenway for flood control and a pedestrian/bicycle pathway to relieve traffic congestion in the city. Dolan claimed that this requirement of dedicating land for a permit constituted a taking of private property without compensation. The state’s high court rejected her claim.
By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court remanded the case for reconsideration. Speaking for the majority, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist concluded that in the circumstances, the city had the burden to show a “rough proportionality” between the building permit requirements and the individualized problems associated with the building project. Judging from the record, Rehnquist did not think the city had demonstrated a reasonable relationship between the project and the need for the greenway space and the pathway. If the city simply wanted some of Dolan’s land for drainage and recreation purposes, it would be required to pay her just compensation. In a dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens criticized the majority for imposing a “novel burden of proof” on a city implementing a valid land-use plan.