Whether holding undeveloped property as an 'investment' or using it as a 'park' in its natural state constitutes economically beneficial or productive use of land under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)

QUESTION PRESENTED In 2000, Douglas Leone and Patricia Perkins-Leone bought beachfront property in Hawaii on which they planned to build a home for their family. The land was zoned for single-family residences, but Maui County decided it should be used as a public park. Instead of buying the land, however, the County wielded its regulatory authority to block the Leones from developing their property in any way. The Leones challenged the County’s refusal to allow them to use or develop their property as a taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments and sought just compensation. In particular, the Leones claimed they had suffered a “categorical” regulatory taking because the County had forced them to keep their land “substantially in its natural state.” Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1018 (1992). The Hawaii Supreme Court disagreed. It held that, for two reasons, the Leones had not been denied “all economically beneficial or productive use of land.” Jd. at 1015. First, the undeveloped property still had “investment use” because the Leones could sell it. Second, the undeveloped property could be used as a beach park at which the Leones potentially could sell concessions. The question presented is: Whether holding undeveloped property as an “investment” or using it as a “park” in its natural state constitutes economically beneficial or productive use of land under Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).