Welcome to the digital.law repository at the University of Washington

[84WashLRev0067] The Legality of Washington Shoreline Development Moratoria in the Wake of Biggers V. City Of Bainbridge Island

Show simple item record

dc.contributor.author DeLappe, Michelle E.
dc.contributor.author Washington Law Review
dc.date.accessioned 2010-01-28T20:21:31Z
dc.date.available 2010-01-28T20:21:31Z
dc.date.issued 2009-02
dc.identifier.citation 84 Wash. L. Rev. 67 (2009) en_US
dc.identifier.issn 0043-0617
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/1773.1/219
dc.description.abstract Abstract: The Washington State Supreme Court struck down the temporary shoreline development moratorium at issue in Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island, 162 Wash. 2d 683, 169 P.3d 14 (2007); yet the court fragmented on the broader question of whether a local government has authority to adopt a moratorium on shoreline development during long-term land-use planning. In light of upcoming deadlines for the state’s local governments to revise their shoreline-management plans, constraints on local authority to adopt shoreline moratoria during the planning process take on heightened importance for hundreds of local governments. The question highlights the tension between private property rights and government authority to regulate for the public welfare. This Note argues that, when presented with a reasonable moratorium, Washington courts should deem persuasive the agreement of the Biggers’ concurrence and dissent, which form a majority in favor of the legality of reasonable moratoria. Biggers provides binding legal precedent pursuant to the narrowest-grounds rule for interpreting plurality decisions, holding only that an unreasonable shoreline moratorium contravenes Washington law. Courts that adopt this position will remain in harmony with the state’s long history of broad local police powers while continuing the traditional requirement that land-use ordinances be reasonable. Public policy, particularly environmental imperatives, also favors upholding the reasonable shoreline moratorium. This Note proposes substantive and procedural factors, applicable in future cases, that likely fulfill the reasonableness requirement in Biggers. en_US
dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Seattle: Washington Law Review, University of Washington School of Law en_US
dc.subject Note en_US
dc.title [84WashLRev0067] The Legality of Washington Shoreline Development Moratoria in the Wake of Biggers V. City Of Bainbridge Island en_US
dc.type Article en_US
dc.rights.holder Copyright 2009 by Washington Law Review Association.


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search digital.law


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account