Dolan v. City of Tigard

In the 1990s, the city of Tigard, Oregon, faced (1) increased traffic of motor vehicles and (2) flooding of streets because of concrete surfaces.

In an effort to lessen auto traffic, the city planned bike paths and sidewalks. Next, to reduce flooding, Tigard required businesses to maintain 15% of their parcels as open space.

Florence Dolan owned a store within the floodplain area of Tigard. She wanted to double her store size & pave her parking lot (which would make rainwater impossible to seep into the ground).

Tigard granted Dolan a building permit with 2 provisos: (1) Dolan would need to deed all her land within the floodplain to the city, & (2) Tigard demand the construction of an extra walkway & bicycle path.

In summary, Tigard was asking for 10% of her land in exchange for Dolan's building permit.

Dolan appealed the stipulations for her building permit in Tigard to the land use board where she loses.

Dolan also loses in the later appeal to the Oregon Supreme Court.

Are the city's permit conditions reasonably related to Dolan's development plan?

Tigard's requirements aren't reasonably related to the asserted governmental interests; the 5th Amendment's Takings clause has been violated.

A conditional regulatory taking as in this case is called an exaction.