Wardany v. City of San Jacinto

• Published by:  Dist. Court, CD California

Wardany v. City of San Jacinto, Dist. Court, CD California (2011)
      Saad El Wardany, owner of a general convenience store filed suit against the City of San Jacinto for constructing a mile-long median down the road abutting his property.  One of Wardany’s chief complaints was that by installing the median, the city committed a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment and Article I of the California Constitution.  This argument was not upheld because the city did not exercise eminent domain nor reserve part of Wardany’s land for public use.  Wardany also argues that the City’s actions directly caused a decrease in business revenues for his store.  As in Buckles v. King County, 191 F.3d 1127, 1140, 9th Cir. (1999), the Ninth Circuit has previously held that “a land use regulation does not constitute a taking if the regulation does not deny a landowner all economically viable use of the property and if the regulation substantially advances a legitimate government interest.” 

      Despite Wardany’s unsubstantiated claim that his sales were diminished by 55%, a property owner has no constitutional right to compensation simply because the streets upon which his property abuts are improved so as to affect the traffic flow on such streets,” as established in People ex rel. Department of Public Works v. Ayon, 54 Cal.2d 217, 223, 5 Cal. Rptr. 151, 352 P.2d 519 (1960).  The City of San Jacinto’s motion for summary judgment was granted.