Bettendorf v. St. Croix County

Dist. Ct. did not err in granting defendant-County's motion for summary judgment in section 1983 action alleging that defendant violated plaintiff's due process rights, as well as constructively took plaintiff's property without adequate compensation when defendant rescinded commercial zoning designation on portion of plaintiff's property pursuant to state appellate court ruling in lawsuit filed by plaintiff that had requested court to make permanent said commercial designation. Language in existing ordinance made commercial zoning designation valid only for as long as plaintiff owned property, and instant striking of commercial zoning designation was not tantamount to constructive taking of plaintiff's property where plaintiff freely agreed to conditional zoning designation when it was initially given. Moreover, state court's reversion of property to its original agricultural/residential zoning designation did not render property useless for purposes of supporting any takings claim. Fact that plaintiff had alternative administrative remedy in County Code to review zoning designation did not translate into finding that due process given to plaintiff in instant state-court review was inadequate where plaintiff was given full opportunity to rebut defendant's claim that ordinance giving plaintiff conditional zoning designation was invalid in its entirety. (Partial Dissent filed.)