It would help but probably you'd still owe something.
Business & Professions Code § 5412 is the current controlling statute, and that is a codification of what the courts have required.
That requirement is not just a california constitutional problem, but a federal one.
So even if you modified the california constitution, you'd still have the federal problem.
The federal problem is much less than the state one (SCOTUS has found the floor here to be quite low), but it's still bad enough that feds require compensation as well. Just less compensation.
For example, 23 U.S.C. § 131(g) conditions federal highway funds on paying just compensation for removals along Interstate and federal-aid primary highways — 10% of apportionment forfeited otherwise.
I looked into this quite heavily, and had long discussions with legislators, because there was a huge ugly billboard 150 feet from my house in San Jose :)
It would still get tied up in litigation. The “takings” doctrine that requires compensation is based on the fifth amendment: “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I believe regulatory changes similar to what you propose have been ruled takings in the past. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the state would lose, but this supreme court doesn’t seem particularly amenable.
Comments
What if we got a proposition that said we have to take them all down and not pay for lost revenue?
It would help but probably you'd still owe something.
Business & Professions Code § 5412 is the current controlling statute, and that is a codification of what the courts have required.
That requirement is not just a california constitutional problem, but a federal one.
So even if you modified the california constitution, you'd still have the federal problem.
The federal problem is much less than the state one (SCOTUS has found the floor here to be quite low), but it's still bad enough that feds require compensation as well. Just less compensation.
For example, 23 U.S.C. § 131(g) conditions federal highway funds on paying just compensation for removals along Interstate and federal-aid primary highways — 10% of apportionment forfeited otherwise.
I looked into this quite heavily, and had long discussions with legislators, because there was a huge ugly billboard 150 feet from my house in San Jose :)
It would still get tied up in litigation. The “takings” doctrine that requires compensation is based on the fifth amendment: “ nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
I believe regulatory changes similar to what you propose have been ruled takings in the past. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the state would lose, but this supreme court doesn’t seem particularly amenable.