Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Opinion
Dissenting Opinion
Kozinski, J.
dissenting from the order denying the petition for rehearing en banc:
The panel does not like the Supreme Court’s Takings Clause jurisprudence very much, so it reverses First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 , 107 S.Ct. 2378 , 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987), and adopts Justice Stevens’s First English dissent. Because we are not free to rewrite Supreme Court precedent, I urged our court to take this case en banc. By voting not to rehear, we have neglected our duty and passed the burden of correcting our mistake on to a higher authority.
1. For almost twenty years, Lake Tahoe property owners have battled the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), which has blocked the owners’ efforts to build homes on their land. The primary issue on this appeal, the fourth in this interminable case, is a temporary moratorium that required owners to leave their land idle for almost three years. The moratorium is only one of a series of restrictions and regulations that have prevented the plaintiffs-largely families who purchased'lots in the 1970s hoping to build vacation or retirement homés-from making any use whatsoever of their property. After a bench trial, the…
Lead Opinion
ORDER
Judges Politz, Reinhardt, and Hawkins voted to deny the petition for rehearing. Judges Reinhardt and Hawkins voted to deny the petition for rehearing en banc and Judge Politz recommended denial of the petition for rehearing en banc.
A judge of the court called for a vote on the petition for rehearing en banc. A vote was taken, and a majority of the active judges of the court failed to vote for en banc rehearing. Fed. R.App. P. 35(f).
*999 The petition for rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied.