BUREAU OF GEOLOGY


particular geographic areas for the purpose of promoting public benefits
but without recognition of the obligation to compensate the owner. The
case underscores the need for government to establish balanced man-
agement programs-such as development rights transfers or bonuses
and incentives to guide growth away from heavily restricted areas to
desired areas-rather than requiring a single owner to suffer the cost of
providing community benefits (Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, April
1980).
 "The constitutional question which arose from Estuary Properties v.
Askew of "a taking" versus a valid exercise of the police power, with
regard to the regulation of development in wetlands, was further
reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court in April of 1981 as Graham v.
Estuary Properties, Inc. The Florida Supreme Court held that the permit
denial in response to Estuary's DRI application was a valid exercise of the
police power but the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission must
provide Estuary Properties with the changes which would make the
development eligible for approval. Regarding balancing of public versus
private interests (protecting public health, safety, and welfare versus
protection of private property interests), the court found that the adverse
environmental impact and deviation from the policies of the planning
council could outweigh other more favorable findings in deciding a devel-
opment approval.
 "The court also reasoned that:
 if the regulation preventing the destruction of the mangrove forest was
 necessary to avoid unreasonable pollution of the water thereby caus-
 ing attendant harm to the public, the exercise of police power would be
 reasonable.
"Since the Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission found that the
development would cause pollution in the bays and effect the county's
economy, the court ruled that:
 "The regulation at issue here promotes the welfare of the public, pre-
 vents public harm and has not been arbitrarily applied.
 "In discussing the reasonableness of the regulation the court also
relies on the "magnitude of Estuary's proposed development and the
sensitive nature of the surrounding lands and water to be affected by it.
In this situation it is not unreasonable to place some restrictions on the
owner's use of the property." Furthermore the court found that Estuary
did not have legitimate investment-backed expectations for use of the
property but only "its own subjective expectation that the land could be
developed in the manner it now proposes."
 "In answer to the taking issue the court said that "Estuary purchased
the property in question . with full knowledge that part of it was totally
unsuitable for development." The court said that there was no evidence
supporting the claim that Estuary could make no beneficial use of the
land.
 "It seems that in the Estuary case the court did not agree that the
property was rendered worthless by the exercise of police power. In


132