Homework answers / question archive / Question 1 1 / 1 pts Inverse condemnation is defined as:    An exercise of a government’s police power

Question 1 1 / 1 pts Inverse condemnation is defined as:    An exercise of a government’s police power

Management

Share With

---

Question 1

1 / 1 pts

Inverse condemnation is defined as:

  

An exercise of a government’s police power.

  

The use of regulations for the public’s benefit.

  

The government’s right to take private property for public uses.

  

A legal action where a landowner seeks just compensation for a “taking” of his or her property.

 

 

Question 2

1 / 1 pts

Farmer Shelly owns land zoned for farm and forest use in Oregon where she maintains timber lands, grazes livestock and grows mushrooms for commercial sale. As an extra revenue source, she holds a bluegrass concert every weekend in the summer, drawing 1,000 people to her land. She allows food trucks to set up, invites jewelry makers and other vendors and charges a fee for their presence in addition to the admission fee paid by concert guests. 

Shelly's neighbors complain to their county land use planning department about the traffic and noise, arguing that her farm and forest land is zoned for agricultural use, not commercial entertainment events.

What is the most likely action that the county land use planning department will take?

  

The county will have to bring a public nuisance case to make her stop.

  

Shelly will be allowed to continue.

  

The county will do nothing. Shelly is allowed to hold concerts on her land, even though it is zoned for farm use.

  

Shelly will be required to stop holding the concerts because they are not allowed in her farm use zone, or else will face fines or other penalties.

 

 

Question 3

1 / 1 pts

If a government taking of private property occurs, the government must pay “just compensation” to the property owner. Just compensation is defined as:

  

Value of the loss to the owner

  

Fair market value of the property

  

All of the answers are correct.

  

Valuation of the property at the time of the taking

 

 

Question 4

1 / 1 pts

What is the benefit of having land zoned as Exclusive Farm Use in Oregon when you and your neighbors are agricultural producers?

  

Recognition of allowed farming practices and reduced agricultural property tax.

  

Protection from residential and commercial development conflicting with your farm practices.

  

All of the answers are correct.

  

Ensuring agricultural open space and sector in the community.

 

 

Question 5

1 / 1 pts

What is the difference between US federal and state prohibitions on government taking of private property?

  

Both federal and state constitutions allow the government to take private property for public use with just compensation, but state constitutions can be more protective of private property rights (set more restrictions on state government authority).

  

Both federal and state constitutions allow the government to take private property for public use with just compensation, but states may not set stronger protections of private property rights than the federal constitution.

  

Because the 5th and 14th Amendments of the federal constitution define the government's authority of eminent domain, states may not set their own restrictions.

  

All of the answers are correct.

 

 

Question 6

0 / 1 pts

Can government use of zoning ever be considered a taking?

  

Yes, if a change in zoning rule requires a landowner to give up established property rights.

  

No, because if a landowner wants a change in a zoning rule, she should give something up to get it.

  

Yes, changes in zoning are always a taking that require compensation.

  

No, because zoning is always a valid government regulation.

 

 

Question 7

0 / 1 pts

Are the USDA "checkoff" programs unconstitutional takings? 
Check-off programs require producers to pay a certain amount of money for the sale of certain commodities. For example, the beef checkoff requires payment of $1 per head of live cattle sold, the money goes into a fund for research and promotion (i.e., "Beef, it's what's for dinner").

  

Yes, the USDA checkoff programs are an unconstitutional takings because the money is not used for a public purpose.

  

No, the USDA checkoff programs are not unconstitutional takings because it is an assessment paid in cash, not physical seizure of farm products.

  

Yes, the USDA checkoff programs are an unconstitutional taking because money is property.

  

No, the USDA checkoff programs are not unconstitutional takings because the government uses the money to help producers.

 

 

Question 8

1 / 1 pts

A physical taking does NOT include:

  

A regulation requiring buildings to be set back from a stream.

   

Government acquisition of an easement in the property

   

Destruction of the property

   

Permanent physical invasion of the property