Sprawl, Growth Boundaries and the Rehnquist Court

UGBs are probably constitutional under Supreme Court Takings Clause precedent for two reasons. First, a UGB will rarely, if ever, cause a complete deprivation of economically beneficial use, and is thus unlikely to be a compensable "total taking" under Lucas and Palazzolo. Second, UGBs will generally not be compensable "partial takings" under the Penn Central balancing test, because they are typically justified by a legitimate state purpose (that of preventing the urbanization of rural areas) and will, if prudently drafted, rarely interfere with landowners' investment-backed expectations.