Taking care of the land

The Supreme Court's recent 6 to 3 decision in the matter of First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale vs. Los Angeles County might have raised a few hopes locally among those who wish to rid our valley of the National Park Service (NPS). Copies of a news account concerning the ruling, taken from a New Jersey newspaper, were distributed by NPS protesters at the Roebling Bridge re-opening ceremony last Saturday.

In the case, the high court ordered a county government to pay unspecified money damages to a landowner who claimed to have been denied "all use" of a 21 acre parcel, by unreasonable zoning. But will this ruling result in the Upper Delaware's local NPS staff leaving town?

Probably not.

The case in California centered around a church being prevented, for safety reasons, from using flood-plain land it owned for organized teenage campouts. The court ruled that the municipality's severe restrictions amounted to a Constitutional "taking" under the Fifth Amendment.

In one respect, the ruling should certainly be applauded because it makes the supremem law of the land, that just compensation must be paid if local zoning ordinances, or changes in such ordinances, reduce the value of affected land parcels.

However, with the recent boon in the valley real estate market, even the most skilled attorney would have difficulty making a meritorious case for the argument that the NPS or the River Management Plan have reduced land values here.

On the Upper Delaware, our town, county, state and federal officials have worked together to produce a document which they believe effectively guarantees perpetual private ownership of land in the river corridor, and sets forth reasonable land and water use guidelines to preserve the integrity of our natural resources.

More likely than deposing the NPS administeration of the river is that publicity in the aftermath of the Supreme Court decision could have a chilling effect on town boards' courage to write ordinances or enforce existing ones. A developer or landowner claiming "damages" when a variance is not granted might win a judgement against the municipality, some might fear.

But it should be kept in mind that, under the ruling, the person making the allegations of damage must first demonstrate that he or she has in fact suffered financial loss. And secondly, it appears that the unreasonable ordinance in question must have denied "all use" of the property.

Actually it will be years before the full meaning of the court's decision is known.

Let us hope that an exaggerated fear of lawsuits does not prevent local public offials in our valley from doing their jobs, by strict enforcement of existing ordinances.

-- Tom Rue, contributing editor

---

Above text is copyright by the author.
Duplication without permission is prohibited.