Point Reyes National Seashore Condemnation Blight

National Park Service's acquisition program intentionally drives "just compensation" to "willing sellers" far below Fair Market Value

"It may be thought that our holding frustrates the intent of Congress because that body obviously intended that payment for land acquired for the National Seashore should be made out of funds budgeted and appropriated by it in modest amounts annually. The trouble is, it intended other things too. It intended that further economic development of land, especially by subdivision, should be halted. It intended that land be acquired before further price inflation could occur. It intended that owners with pending development plans and others concerned should be settled with promptly and not kept in unfair and damaging suspense. Hindsight shows that these objects were irreconcilable but we think the intent to do justice to the landowners had priority. The Point Reyes project has, indeed, performed valuable service as an example of what to avoid, and the Redwoods legislation shows the lesson has been learned. As to Point Reyes, the Congress must be presumed to have been aware that it had previously enacted a Tucker Act, which was available in case the convergent pressures on any landowner became great beyond its expectation, as it has saved the day in many another sticky situation."

Drakes Bay Land Co. v. U.S., 191 Cl. Ct 389 at 413 (US Cl Ct App Div 1970) (Emphasis added).

Drakes Bay was decided by the Claims Court's Appellate Division. In 1982, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeal was created by merging the Appellate Division with the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. Therefore, Drakes Bay is binding precedent on all Federal District Courts, as it was decided by a Federal Court of Appeal. Note also that the Tucker Act is the the federal law that allows landowners to sue the United States, in what is now called the Court of Federal Claims, for inverse condemnation (regulatory takings) of their property.

Drakes Bay Land Company v. United States, 191 Ct. Cl. 389 (U.S. Ct. Cl. App. Div. 1970)

You must have Acrobat Reader 6.0 or greater to view this file. You can download it for free at http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html.