d the regulation was designed to promote the good of the public, were the circumstance to rule in favor of the city, that these aspects were address in the correct manner. Using Brennan's scale in the Adult Entertainment dispute, the government is causing a negative economic impact on the adult entertainment enterprise by revoking its ability to sell in a profitable area. The government is limiting the realm of freedom and ability of the property owner by extraditing that owner from the property for relocation outside the zoned areas. The only support the city has for justification under Justice Brennan's four items of a takings is the that the intention of the city is for the public interest, so it claims.In a more specific analysis of the circumstances of the regulations by the Department of City Planning, the second regulation is a standard of a takings by the Dolan v. City of Tigard decision. Justice Rehnquist's opinion follows a determination of "rough proportionality" within the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment principles. The second regulation involves a boundary to which adult establishments must locate 500 feet form schools, houses of worship, and day care centers. The question relevant in this matter is how is the number 500 feet determined. In the Rehnquist precedent of "rough proportionality", he specifically states that the determination of a property boundary regulation is "not mathematical". He finds that the regulating factor must be a relationship between what the property owner is giving up to what the scope-extent of the plan by the city involves. The city must show a connection between what the interest of the adult entertainment sales are as the interest of the commercial zoning bordering the property of church and schools. This is not clear by the second regulation by the city in legal terms set by the Supreme Court in the matter of a takings occurrence.Reasoning.Within the course of owning property ...
