But even if there were some legitimate emergency that required uniform compliance to some new code, you'd think the zoning board had other options. Changing the zoning on a business ex post facto and then demanding that it conform to the new code surely is a "taking," and should obligate the municipality to pay compensation for the value represented by the business activity over an anticipated number of years--something easily established from receipts, in this case.
I don't understand--other than the usual, corrupt, political reasons. In these situations, there's usually the invisible hand of a politically connected competitor in the picture, isn't there? Otherwise, these local totalitarian visions would be impossible to get done.
Think Kelo
Liberals in Texas have always been resentful of Texas property rights/lack of zoning to keep the ugly (like auto repair shops) out of their upscale environment. This is being done by liberal in Dallas.
Eminent domain requires zero grandfathering. Kelo allows tbem to basically do whatever they want.
If they really wanted to be mean they could have civil asset forfeitured his behind.
Typically all existing uses are grandfathered, but the hook is that if the property owner wants to expand then he has to meet the new development code. The other case is if the land is sold it has to be converted to meet the new code and can no longer operate as a repair shop in the case.
But this isn’t isolated to Dallas or other big cities. When I first moved to Klamath Falls Oregon I went to a barber shop for a haircut. It was Ken’s Barber Shop but Ken no longer owned it. The new owner left it that way because the City would have required him to make thousands of dollars in changes to the street front appearance of the building just for putting up a new sign.
” Changing the zoning on a business ex post facto and then demanding that it conform to the new code surely is a “taking,” and should obligate the municipality to pay compensation for the value represented by the business activity over an anticipated number of years—something easily established from receipts, in this case.”
That could be a very tough case to prevail on. Very. And, I have some experience with these things though IANAL. Because the owner is to be compensated based upon the highest & best use..but that is for the BUILDING. The town is not taking the building. The business inside is something whose existence is as we know not guaranteed by anything other than the sweat of the owner. I’m not clear whether the owner can be compensated for that; and/or having to move the biz. It’s actually a fairly interesting case. (over and above the “fairness” part)
Perhaps a suit could be brought for tortious interference but it is very hard to get a verdict in a town where the judges tacitly support the town council or whatever it is. That could be a $100+K case to bring. And it is hard to sue a town engaged in zoning. Like it or not, that’s very much considered within their power. Very tough case, even though it seems so unfair.