Adams Outdoor Advertising v City of East Lansing
463 Mich 17 (2000)
Issue: Billboards – taking
When the case was sent back to the circuit court, however, the court found that the application of the sign code to the rooftop signs effected a taking. Courts have found that land use regulations can constitute a taking in two general situations: 1) when they fail to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest or 2) when they deny an owner economically viable use of the land.
The second type of taking has been further subdivided into either a so-called “categorical” taking, where the owner is deprived of all economically beneficial or productive use of the property, or a taking based on the application of a balancing test. The Court of Appeals affirmed that East Lansing’s ordinance resulted in a taking. The city appealed to the Michigan Supreme Court.
|Why did the LDF get involved?
At issue was whether a validly enacted, legally enforceable police power ordinance that requires the removal, after a specified amortization period, of existing off-premises advertising billboards effects a taking requiring compensation. The case presented the opportunity for Michigan to join the great majority of jurisdictions that have addressed the question and found that no taking results as long as the amortization period is reasonable.
What action did the LDF take?
What was the outcome?
Who prepared the amicus brief?