Lucas V. South Essay, Research Paper

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Charles Adams

Problem: David H. Lucas purchased two beach front lots on Isle of Palms in Charleston county in 1986 for 900,000 with intent to later build one single family home on each lot. The following year when South Carolina conducted a survey of the coast line the rustles showed that the beaches of South Carolina were critically eroding. Due to the rustles of the survey South Carolina issued the Beachfront Management Act (BMA). The act placed restraints on the usage of land along the coast line, and because the building line was moved inward Lucas’ lots were affected with no exceptions provided. When he bought those lots the year before that particular zone was not required to have a permit to build. When Lucas went to build the proper permits were not given due to the BMA, and his lots were deemed 95% worthless.

Laws: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Passed in order to protect the country coastline from erosion.

The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977

Passed in order to protect the shoreline from erosion, preserve the beach and dune systems, and prevent further coastal damage. And said that before construction could take place in any designated, environmentally sensitive “critical area” an owner had to obtain permission from the South Carolina Coastal Council.

The South Carolina Beachfront Management Act of 1988

Passed to further enforce the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, and extend the “critical area” further inland.

Case: Lucas submitted his suit to the South Carolina court of Common Pleas, and sued, alleging that the Beachfront Management Act of 1988 had effected a taking of the value of his property without just compensation. The court agreed that Lucas had suffered a total loss of the value of his property and concluded that regulatory taking had occurred. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court revised the decision, on the grounds that the BMA had been passed to prevent serious harm to the public. Lucas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and the Court sided with Lucas saying that the Beachfront Management Act of 1988 had not been designed to benefit the state in obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court ruled that Lucas suffered a taking, and that his property was rendered valueless by South Carolina statue and that he was entitled to just compensation as stated in the fifth and fourteen adamants of our Constitution.

Significance: Although the South Carolina Supreme Court decided that state regulations were designed to prevent serious public harm, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a property owner suffered a taking, there were no exceptions from common rule ( the Takings Clause and the just Compensation Clause). Furthermore, when the state of South Carolina amended its original statute by including provisions that might permit limited construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that property owners must still be compensated. Even when legislation later renders the initial act less restrictive, property owners still suffer from the original effects of a taking, thus, just compensation must be rendered. (Mikula 518)

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

Charles Adams

Problem: David H. Lucas purchased two beach front lots on Isle of Palms in Charleston county in 1986 for 900,000 with intent to later build one single family home on each lot. The following year when South Carolina conducted a survey of the coast line the rustles showed that the beaches of South Carolina were critically eroding. Due to the rustles of the survey South Carolina issued the Beachfront Management Act (BMA). The act placed restraints on the usage of land along the coast line, and because the building line was moved inward Lucas’ lots were affected with no exceptions provided. When he bought those lots the year before that particular zone was not required to have a permit to build. When Lucas went to build the proper permits were not given due to the BMA, and his lots were deemed 95% worthless.

Laws: The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972

Passed in order to protect the country coastline from erosion.

The South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977

Passed in order to protect the shoreline from erosion, preserve the beach and dune systems, and prevent further coastal damage. And said that before construction could take place in any designated, environmentally sensitive “critical area” an owner had to obtain permission from the South Carolina Coastal Council.

The South Carolina Beachfront Management Act of 1988

Passed to further enforce the South Carolina Coastal Zone Management Act of 1977, and extend the “critical area” further inland.

Case: Lucas submitted his suit to the South Carolina court of Common Pleas, and sued, alleging that the Beachfront Management Act of 1988 had effected a taking of the value of his property without just compensation. The court agreed that Lucas had suffered a total loss of the value of his property and concluded that regulatory taking had occurred. On appeal, the South Carolina Supreme Court revised the decision, on the grounds that the BMA had been passed to prevent serious harm to the public. Lucas petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case and the Court sided with Lucas saying that the Beachfront Management Act of 1988 had not been designed to benefit the state in obtaining land for public use, but was to prevent harm to the public. The Court ruled that Lucas suffered a taking, and that his property was rendered valueless by South Carolina statue and that he was entitled to just compensation as stated in the fifth and fourteen adamants of our Constitution.

Significance: Although the South Carolina Supreme Court decided that state regulations were designed to prevent serious public harm, the U.S. Supreme Court held that when a property owner suffered a taking, there were no exceptions from common rule ( the Takings Clause and the just Compensation Clause). Furthermore, when the state of South Carolina amended its original statute by including provisions that might permit limited construction, the U.S. Supreme Court held that property owners must still be compensated. Even when legislation later renders the initial act less restrictive, property owners still suffer from the original effects of a taking, thus, just compensation must be rendered. (Mikula 518)