1. David Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council Blown Away by the Court

2. 2 1972 1 1973 0 1974 0 19751 19762 19771 19780 19791 19800 19811 19820 19830 19841 19851 19862 19870 19880 1989 Hugo Hurricane Activity in South Carolina

3. 3 Federal Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 Among other provisions.... Required States to adopt coastal management polices as a condition for availability of Federal (coastal) flood insurance As South Carolina was having a lot of coastal development, the availability of federal flood insurance was important

4. 4 Unless the state of South Carolina adopted a “coastal management” plan, no (coastal) flood insurance would be available. As time was running out...... Beach Front Management Act appears

5. 5

6. 6 They seemed to sense what was coming Hurricane Hugo!.....

7. 7 The Lucas Property Lucas Lot 1 Lucas Lot 2

8. 8

9. 9 SC Supreme Court The Lucas construction would be a nuisance, and since there is no right to create a nuisance, there is no compensation for loss of that right. –Citing Muggler v Kansas

10. 10 US Supreme Court [SC stipulated that Lucas did not have any beneficial use of the property] “[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking.”

11. 11 Beachfront Management Act "The General Assembly finds that: "(4)... Development unwisely has been sited too close to the [beach/dune] system. This type of development has jeopardized the stability of the beach/dune system, accelerated erosion, and endangered adjacent property. It is in both the public and private interests to protect the system from this unwise development.”

12. 12 Scalia... “To win its case, respondent cannot simply proffer the legislature's declaration that the uses Lucas desires are inconsistent with the public interest, or the conclusory assertion that they violate a common ‑ law maxim. South Carolina must identify background principles of nuisance and property law that prohibit the uses Lucas now intends in the property's present circumstances.”