{
  "id": "RS20493",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RS20493",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 102392,
      "date": "2000-03-10",
      "retrieved": "2016-05-24T20:38:13.458941",
      "title": "Property Rights: House Judiciary Committee Reports H.R. 2372",
      "summary": "On March 9, 2000, the House Committee on the Judiciary reported favorably  H.R. 2372 . The bill, titled \"Private Property Rights Implementation Act of 2000,\" is aimed principally\nat lowering the threshold barriers of ripeness and abstention encountered when land owners file in\nfederal court challenging local government actions as \"takings.\"  (1)  Under\nthe Fifth Amendment's\nTakings Clause (which applies to state and local, not only federal, actions), private property may not\nbe \"taken\" for public use without just compensation.\n  It is well-settled that takings may be effected not only by government appropriation or physical\ninvasion of private property, but by use restrictions as well. When use restriction (as, typically, by\nlocal zoning) has a sufficiently severe impact on a property's economic use, courts find that a\n\"taking\" has occurred, and that the regulating government must pay compensation.\n  Takings challenges to local government action may be brought in state or federal court. In\nfederal court, the plaintiff must surmount a wider array of threshold issues than in state court before\nthe taking issue can be reached. Some of these issues concern \"ripeness.\" Ripeness doctrine\nrequires that before a taking claim is heard by a federal court, the plaintiff must obtain a \"final\ndecision\" from the land-use regulating body (including resubmission of scaled-down proposals in\nsome cases, and pursuit of any possible variances), and that any avenues for obtaining compensation\nfrom the state courts be exhausted. Another threshold issue often encountered in takings cases\nagainst local government is abstention, a doctrine that may lead a federal court to decline exercising\njurisdiction in deference to state forums for resolving the matter.\n     1.  \u00a0The bill applies to federal government actions as well, but\nthis is not the bill's focus and has been\nuniversally disregarded in the congressional debate.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RS20493",
          "sha1": "13ee894fc8605f4c83acbd6704a637f0b2cae5c9",
          "filename": "files/20000310_RS20493_13ee894fc8605f4c83acbd6704a637f0b2cae5c9.pdf",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "filename": "files/20000310_RS20493_13ee894fc8605f4c83acbd6704a637f0b2cae5c9.html"
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law"
  ]
}