Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)

Citation
Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Parent Document
Small Property Owners v. City & County of San Francisco, 47 Cal. Rptr. 3d 121 (2006)
Jurisdiction
California (state)
Effective Date
2006-08-09

Other Sections in This Document (187)

Full Text

460 chars
Of course, the mandatory payment of money by appellants out of their own pocket does constitute an appropriation of that property. Thus, we see the somewhat absurd result of applying a takings clause analysis to the payment of money: all payments of money eliminate the payor’s interest in the property. In order for the application of the takings clause to payments of money to make sense, we must remember Justice Kennedy’s reservation in Eastern Enterprises