Tweet
Reading an article in the L.A. Times about the a property deal involving the Edge of U2 fame lead me to thinking: can/has the CA AWB been challenged as a taking?
I did a quick search and did not find anything definitive, but I will admit to being lazy in my search. I know traditionally regulatory takings mostly involved real property vs. personal property, which would be the case of "AWs." But the ban seems to be a restraint on the alienation of property as it means one cannot sell their registered "AW" with in the state of CA nor could one bequeath the registered "AW" to a descendant in CA. So it seems the government has taken the some rights commonly associated with property.
There may be holes in this as one could sell the Registered "AW", just out of state.
Now, I am not familiar with the legislative history of either Roberti-Roos or SB23 (?) so I am not sure if either was declared to have a fiscal impact. However assuming that they did not, the benefit, if the current AWB was found to be a taking, would seem to be an increase the voting threshold on any new ban as it now has a fiscal impact, IIRC the voting requirements correctly. This is also under the assumption that any future ban would be similar in nature and effect as the current one. I am sure the anti's could Fashion a future ban to not have a fiscal impact.
Plus it hits the State in the wallet, which may or may not be a good things for us taxpayers.
I know there are multiple Per se takings, that I do not thing that the AWB falls under. However, the factor based takings jurisprudence may work, the owners were economically impacted because of the restraint on alienation. There investment backed expectation of the ability to resell has been interfered with (Though, see the problem with this one above). The nature of the government action was an outright ban.
Now, I admit that this is an over simplistic analysis using wikipedia info on takings but thought I would throw it out there for the legal eagles to opine upon.
I did a quick search and did not find anything definitive, but I will admit to being lazy in my search. I know traditionally regulatory takings mostly involved real property vs. personal property, which would be the case of "AWs." But the ban seems to be a restraint on the alienation of property as it means one cannot sell their registered "AW" with in the state of CA nor could one bequeath the registered "AW" to a descendant in CA. So it seems the government has taken the some rights commonly associated with property.
There may be holes in this as one could sell the Registered "AW", just out of state.
Now, I am not familiar with the legislative history of either Roberti-Roos or SB23 (?) so I am not sure if either was declared to have a fiscal impact. However assuming that they did not, the benefit, if the current AWB was found to be a taking, would seem to be an increase the voting threshold on any new ban as it now has a fiscal impact, IIRC the voting requirements correctly. This is also under the assumption that any future ban would be similar in nature and effect as the current one. I am sure the anti's could Fashion a future ban to not have a fiscal impact.
Plus it hits the State in the wallet, which may or may not be a good things for us taxpayers.
I know there are multiple Per se takings, that I do not thing that the AWB falls under. However, the factor based takings jurisprudence may work, the owners were economically impacted because of the restraint on alienation. There investment backed expectation of the ability to resell has been interfered with (Though, see the problem with this one above). The nature of the government action was an outright ban.
Now, I admit that this is an over simplistic analysis using wikipedia info on takings but thought I would throw it out there for the legal eagles to opine upon.
Comment