Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)

Citation
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)
Parent Document
Kavanau v. Santa Monica Rent Control Board, 16 Cal. 4th 761 (1997)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
1997-08-26

Other Sections in This Document (115)

Full Text

853 chars
“[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 *796leave his property economically idle,” a taking occurs. (Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, supra, 505 U.S. at p. 1019 [112 S.Ct. at p. 2895], fn. omitted.) The same is true if a regulation deprives the owner of economic use to the extent that the owner is unfairly singled out to bear a burden that should be borne by the public as a whole. (Yee v. Escondido (1992) 503 U.S. 519, 522-523 [112 S.Ct. 1522, 1526, 118 L.Ed.2d 153.)1 A taking also occurs if a land-use regulation extinguishes a fundamental attribute of ownership. (Agins v. Tiburon (1980) 447 U.S. 255, 262 [100 S.Ct. 2138, 2142, 65 L.Ed.2d 106]; Kaiser Aetna v. United States, supra, 444 U.S. at pp. 179-180 [100 S.Ct. at pp. 393].)