The two types of regulatory actions that automatically trigger compensation as takings without a court needing to examine the circumstances in a specific case way are described on page 218 of the text. The first encompasses regulations that compel the property owner to suffer a physical “invasion” of his property (Halbert & Lingulli, p.218). Compensation is rewarded regardless of the size of the intrusion and the public purpose behind it. The second type of regulatory action is when the regulation denies all economically beneficial or productive use of the land. In this case, Lucas has suffered a taking and his land is basically being left idle with no economically beneficial use left in it. The regulation must count as a taking unless it simply forbids a use already forbidden under the common law (Halbert & Lingulli, p.219). At that point, compensation would not be guaranteed.
Justice Blackmun objects to the takings approach laid out by the majority because he feels that Lucas has not lost all economical value in the property. For many years prior to Congress passing the Coastal Zone Management Act and South Carolina passing the Coastal Zone Management Act and Beachfront Management Act, Lucas’s property had a history of flooding and requiring emergency response actions for sandbags and danger of local structures collapsing. Based on the history of the property, Lucas understood the magnitude of the local environment. Justice Blackmun sees the court’s finding that the property had lost all economical value as a result of the Acts as most certainly erroneous (Halbert & Lingulli, p.220). Although Lucas may no longer use the property as a residential establishment due to safety concerns, the land can still be used for picnics, camping, or establishing a residence in a moveable trailer. He also retains the right to sell this property which would have value for the surrounding neighbors and those citizens wishing to use the land and enjoy ocean views with...