The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] distinguishes between acquisitions of property for public use and regulations prohibiting private uses. The Court has stated that "land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way -- often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford. By contrast, physical appropriations are relatively rare, easily identified, and usually represent a greater affront to individual property rights." ''Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency'', 535 U.S. 302, 323-24 (2002). | The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] distinguishes between acquisitions of property for public use and regulations prohibiting private uses. The Court has stated that "land-use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way -- often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as per se takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford. By contrast, physical appropriations are relatively rare, easily identified, and usually represent a greater affront to individual property rights." ''Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency'', 535 U.S. 302, 323-24 (2002). |