An East
Lansing ordinance banning rooftop billboards does not qualify as a taking and
the city does not owe compensation to the affected business, the Supreme Court
ruled Wednesday.
The
long-running case, Adams Outdoor Advertising v. City of East Lansing (docket
No. 113674), has already appeared before the high court - where justices held
that the city had the legal authority to prohibit freestanding and rooftop
billboards and returned the case to the Ingham County Circuit Court to
determine whether the law resulted in an uncompensated taking.
Wednesday's decision dealt solely with whether the law's impact on rooftop
billboards meant there should be compensation to the business.
In overturning
the trial court and Court of Appeals, a unanimous Supreme Court held that the
billboard leases, which predated the 1975 ordinance, did not include an
absolute right to display signs on the rooftops. Justice Clifford Taylor,
in an opinion joined by Justices Maura Corrigan, Stephen Markman
and Robert Young Jr., wrote that the law is not a taking under a three-part
test.
First, the
court already has ruled that the ordinance is legal and part of reasonable
police power regulation. Second and third, the economic effect of the law
is minimal because the rooftop is only a small portion of the property.
In a separate
concurring opinion, Justice Marilyn Kelly, joined by Justice Michael Cavanagh, said she agreed with the ruling but disagreed
with the premise of basing it on the rights of the lessor,
which she said is not before the court.
"I
realize that the economic effect on the plaintiff in this case is substantial
because defendant's ordinance precludes plaintiff from using its
leaseholds," Ms. Kelly wrote. "I balance that fact against the
absence of any investment-backed expectation and the recognized social benefit
of improving safety and aesthetics."
In another
separate concurring, and somewhat reluctantly so, opinion, Chief Justice
Elizabeth Weaver wrote that she is "concerned this court has failed to
give due consideration to the private property interests related to billboard
ownership and leases," but that eliminating the billboards "would not
change the nature of the underlying governmental action."
7/2000