Final answer:
The Johnsons' situation with the revocation of their liquor license because of a new middle school's proximity and the resulting violation of a town ordinance can be related to the concept of eminent domain, specifically a regulatory taking. Although eminent domain usually involves the actual acquisition of property, significant loss of value or utility triggered by government regulations can also constitute a 'taking' under the legal framework.
Step-by-step explanation:
When the Johnsons accuse the town of stripping their liquor license due to the construction of a new middle school next to their property, they are referring to the concept of eminent domain. Eminent domain is the power of the government to take private property for public use, with the requirement to pay the property owners just compensation. However, the issue presented is not an actual taking of the property but the revocation of a liquor license due to proximity to a school. This could be seen as a form of taking since it deprives the Johnsons of the profitable use of their property, as their revenue is significantly impacted by the loss of happy hour sales which essentially could be argued as a regulatory taking.
The Johnsons have owned a small restaurant for more than 20 years. They're open for lunch and dinner six days a week, and 80% of their weekday revenue comes from the happy hour drink and appetizer specials they offer. The town in which their restaurant is located recently constructed a new middle school and stripped the liquor license from the Johnsons' restaurant, because it no longer complies with the ordinance to be 500 feet from a school property. The Johnsons have accused the town of _____
A) Condemnation B) Escheat C) Eminent domain D) Taking