Abstract
AbstractThis summer, the New Jersey Supreme Court joined the fray between New Jersey's municipalities and beachfront property owners regarding the construction or replenishment of sand dunes to protect the shore from future storms. This dispute has been going on for years, but has become front‐page news since Superstorm Sandy struck the region in October 2012. The storm proved that areas protected by properly engineered dunes fared much better than unprotected areas. The aftermath of the storm has not focused so much upon debate whether the dunes (as opposed to other planning options or concepts) are needed to protect the shore, but rather who should pay for the dunes and what constitutes constitutionally required just compensation for those who paid a premium for their beachfront properties. This article focuses on the way in which this recent court decision has modified a long‐standing legal doctrine governing the valuation of partial takings and examines its possible implications for the future.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call