David paid $975,000 for two beachfront lots in coastal South Carolina, with the intention of building residential homes on each. Two years later, the South Carolina legislature passed the Beachfront Management Act, barring any further development of the coast, including David's lots. When David files a complaint to seek compensation for his property, South Carolina refuses, pointing to a passage in David's own complaint that states "the Beachfront Management Act [was] properly and validly designed to preserve... South Carolina's beaches..." Is South Carolina required to compensate David under the Takings Clause?

Under the taking clause, 'The Beachfront Management Act was properly and validly designed to preserve South Carolina's beaches', which means that no one will be allowed to do any development project near beaches in order to save the beaches.

Though it is already written in the Act, The Beachfront Management Act barred any further development on the coasts of Carolina, which makes the purchased property of David as economically valuless, so South Carolina would be compensating him as the law has passed and they won't allow further development but they need to compensate the people who purchased the property on the beaches for the purpose of future business.