According to the majority opinion in the Lucas case, which two types of regulatory action automatically trigger compensation in the form of takings, without a court having to examine the circumstances in a specific case how? The two types of government regulations that automatically trigger compensation as takings without the court having to look at the circumstances in a case-specific way are regulations that force the landowner to suffer a physical invasion of the property and compensation is awarded regardless of how much small both the intrusion is and the public purpose behind it. Another regulatory action occurs when the government denies all economically beneficial uses resulting from the productive use of land. The 1988 Waterfront Management Act has rendered his land devoid of economic benefits and productivity. The court of this law must treat it as a taking unless it prohibits a use already prohibited by common law. In this case, compensation would not be guaranteed and would depend on whether the government's interest was sufficient to ban the activity (Halbert & Inguli, 2014). Why does the dissent oppose the takings approach proposed by the majority? The dissent holds that the assumption in this case is supported by statutory laws that the government does not take private property, engage in some form of physical invasion, or restrict a landowner's use of property in some respect , if the public interest concerns safety and/or the prevention of damage. The dissenting struggles that the Beachfront Management Act of 1986 have expanded the critical areas to protect shoreline erosion, including the consequences that these actions can be taken without compensation in this case. Additionally, Lucas can still engage in recreational activities such as picnicking, swimming, ... middle of paper ... cannot build for environmental reasons. I would try to understand why my land use is limited and what kind of environmental impact I have when I build on the property. It would be frustrating if my investment was deprived of its opportunity to provide potential future financial gain, however I understand that protecting the environment is an extremely important issue. Also, I should research any problems I may face in the future before making such a large investment in land. I don't feel I have the right to build something if it negatively impacts surrounding properties. Furthermore, if the government did not provide me with a valid reason and demonstrated evidence of adverse environmental impacts, then I would file a lawsuit against the government under the Fifth Amendment which protects private property from appropriation..