Author Question: Substance abuse directly affects employers through: a. reduced productivity b. higher medical ... (Read 64 times)

nmorano1 · **on:** Jun 24, 2018

Substance abuse directly affects employers through:
a. reduced productivity
b. higher medical insurance costs c. increased productivity
d. employees failing to save for retirement e. both a and b are correct

Question 2

Taking. James and Marilyn Nollan sought a building permit from the California Coastal Commission (CCC) to replace a single-story house on the Nollans' beachfront property with a two-story structure approximately three times larger. The CCC concluded that the new house would obstruct the public's view of the ocean, increase private use of the beach, and create a psychological barrier to access to the public beaches that were on both sides of the Nollans' property. The CCC agreed to issue the permit if the Nollans would dedicate a strip of their land for public use. The strip, which ran next to the water's edge along the beach, would connect the public beaches. The Nollans appealed to a court, contending that the CCC's condition was a taking of private property for public use without compensation. Is the CCC's condition a taking? Discuss fully.

Chelseyj.hasty · **Reply #1 on:** Jun 24, 2018

Answer to Question 1

e

Answer to Question 2

Taking
The court agreed with the Nollans, and the CCC appealed. The appellate court ruled in the CCC's favor, and the Nollans appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court concluded that there was not a sufficient connection between the Nollans' proposed construction and the CCC's desired easement for the state to obtain the easement without paying the Nollans for it. Had California simply required the Nollans to make an easement across their beachfront available to the public on a permanent basis in order to increase public access to the beach, rather than conditioning their permit to rebuild their house on their agreeing to do so, we have no doubt there would have been a taking. The Court added that t is quite impossible to understand how a requirement that people already on the public beaches be able to walk across the Nollans' property reduces any obstacles to viewing the beach created by the new house. It is also impossible to understand how it lowers any psychological barrier' to using the public beaches, or how it helps to remedy any additional congestion on them caused by construction of the Nollans' new house. We therefore find that the Commission's imposition of the permit condition cannot be treated as an exercise of its land use power for any of these purposes.