Question

david paid $975,000 for two beachfront lots in coastal south carolina, with the intention of building residential homes on each. two years later, the south carolina legislature passed the beachfront management act, barring any further development of the coast, including david's lots. when david files a complaint to seek compensation for his property, south carolina refuses, pointing to a passage in david's own complaint that states "the beachfront management act [was] properly and validly designed to preserve... south carolina's beaches..." is south carolina required to compensate david under the takings clause?

a.) no, because there is no physical taking of davids property , and he can still use it.

b.) yes, because south Carolina is taking title to the property

c.) no, because the beachfront management act was a proper exercise of south carolinas authority, and no taking occurred

d.) yes, because the beachfront Management Act renders david's property economically valueless.

Answer 1

d.) Yes, because the beachfront Management Act renders David's property economically valueless is something which would apply in this case.