Benson v. City of Portland
Court of Appeals of Oregon
1DissentRossman, P. J.
I do not agree with the majority that PCC 24.80 does not effect an unconstitutional taking of petitioner’s properties. One of the primary purposes of Article I, section 18, of the Oregon Constitution, is to ensure that public burdens are paid for by the public and not by a particular individual. I agree that relieving the hazards associated with blighted areas and dilapidated housing is a laudable goal and one of high social order. However, it is the duty of this court to guarantee that the accompanying financial burden is not placed on private property owners in a manner that offends…
2Cases cited26 opinions
- Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. MahonSupreme Court of the United States · 1922
- Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1982
- Nollan v. California Coastal CommissionSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los AngelesSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Kaiser Aetna v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
21 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.