"In Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, a slim majority on the high court found that since plaintiff Lucas had purchased his coastal property with the intent of residential development prior to passage of state legislation empowering the Coastal Commission to restrict such development for the purpose of natural disaster mitigation, the state owed Lucas compensation for diminution in the value of his property occasioned by this regulation. Lucas has since come to be seen as something of an outlier in Supreme Court takings jurisprudence, in that in subsequent decisions the high court has reverted to its more traditional stance of generally supporting government efforts at disaster mitigation land use regulation, including protection against legal attacks by landowners who purchased their property before such regulation was imposed (e.g., the Tahoe Regional Planning Commission decision). However, Lucas does serve as a reminder to policy makers and land use planners that the difference between reasonable regulation and a compensable taking still ultimately rests in the eye of the judge beholding the government action being challenged". (Burton, "The Constitutional Roots of All-Hazards Policy, Management, and Law," 2008, 9-10)