2007

The $37 million inverse condemnation judgment against the City of Half Moon Bay, California by  the US District Court for the Northern District of California is having some repercussions, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

Under the worst-casescenario, officials say, Half Moon Bay would become the first Bay Areacity forced to dissolve, and the coastal town’s land would become anunincorporated part of San Mateo County.

Members of the City Council say that’s unlikely, and they plan tovote at a public meeting tonight to retain an appellate law firm and afinancial consultant to advise them on how to tackle a court judgmentthat is more than three times Half Moon Bay’s $10 million annual budget.

. . .

Funding such a bond wouldmean “significant budget cuts across the board,” the City Council saidin a joint statement last week. “Everything will be affected – parks,streets, libraries, repairs – every municipal function will…

Continue Reading Government’s Response to $37M Inverse Condemnation Judgment

Columbia University (one of my alma maters) is located in historic Morningside Heights in New York City’s borough of Manhattan.  It has a beautiful campus — an urban oasis with easy access to both downtown and the west side bridges and tunnels — which it wants to expand into the Manhattanville neighborhood on the other side of W. 125th Street.  Apparently, Columbia has promised its residential neighbors it would not leverage the City’s power of eminent domain to take their properties, and commercial property owners now are seeking similar assurances. 

The Castle Coalition posts “Columbia’s Harlem Takeover,” with the latest developments in the case, and AM New York posts this story.  I previously posted about this issue here.

Update: NY Times story on the issue here. Continue Reading Columbia U. Takes Manhattan

The Judiciary’s web site posts mp3’s of Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of Appeals oral arguments, usually the day after the session.  It is an invaluable resource, both to the public and to attorneys desiring to sharpen their appellate advocacy skills or hear details of recently argued cases.

However, the latest audio files from the ICA’s December 12, 2007 sitting have so much background noise, the judges and the lawyers cannot be heard at all.  Check them out here and here.  If any readers have suggestions of how to remove the background noise, please let me know.Continue Reading Hawaii Supreme Court / ICA Oral Argument Audio Files

From January 3 – 5, 2008, ALI-ABA is putting on its annual program of eminent domain seminars, this time in San Francisco, California.  Two programs are being offered: “Condemnation 101: Fundamentals of Condemnation Law and Land Valuation” for those who want a course on the basics, and “Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation,” for those who have some experience in this area of law.  The links above have agenda and faculty details, as well as registration information.  If you register by December 17, 2007 (midnight) using the code “DEC200730,” you will get 30% off of these or any other ALI-ABA course or materials.  Great deal.

These seminars are perhaps the best of their kind offered.  The faculty is great, and the agendas look like they will be their usual high quality.  I’m attending the advanced course.  If you register, be sure to let me know and Continue Reading Eminent Domain Seminars – January 2008

Here are the latest filings in the federal lawsuit by the Maui Vacation Rental Association against the County of Maui.  The court asked for further briefing on the due process claim.   The plaintiff’s supplemental brief is here, and the County’s supplemental brief is here.

Previous posts on the case, including prior briefs and other pleadings, are here, here (video), here, and here.  The hearing on the County’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for December 19, 2007, at 9:00 a.m.Continue Reading Latest Briefs in Maui Vacation Rental Case

The Wall Street Journal posts “Whose Beach Is This Anyway,” a story about how shoreline erosion is resulting in legal disputes nationwide over ownership and building setbacks.

The story notes Hawaii’s Diamond v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res., 112 Haw. 161, 145 P.3d 704 (Oct. 24, 2006), a case which I discussed here:

Property owners are battling in some states overso-called building setbacks, which dictate how far new structures mustbe built from the water. Hawaiian counties, for example, require thatnew construction be at least 20 feet and often up to 40 feet inland ofthe shoreline.

In recent years, some landowners planted salt-tolerantplants at their seaward property line, hoping the vegetation line wouldserve as the shoreline for setback purposes even if the tide sometimesextended past the plants. The state agreed in some cases, but concernedneighbors and environmental groups sued to have the issue clarified.Hawaii’s Supreme Court…

Continue Reading Wall St. Journal on Beach Erosion Issues (video)

The County of Hawaii Planning Department has issued Memorandum No. 07-20 (Oct. 3, 2007) setting forth the County’s reevaluated practices in reviewing development applications “to see whether an environmental assessment is needed under Chap. 343 [the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act.]”  The bottom line is set forth on page 2:

Planners will have to review the application to see if there is construction on state or county land involved.  This may be shown on the site plan.  Planners also have to use common sense in looking at the application.  For example, if access to the property will require constructing a new road over a “paper” government road, this will trigger this Chap. 343 review.

. . .

The end result of this is likely that more applications will need environmental assessments, and, because the entire project has to be considered, some will need full EIS’s, even though the only “trigger” is…

Continue Reading Bootstrapping Environmental Assessment Exemptions

Do primary voters choose candidates or do they choose parties?  The Honolulu Advertiser posts an interesting story about a possible federal constitutional challenge to Hawaii’s system of open primary voting, “Hawaii Democrats may sue to close primaries.” 

Under article II, section 4 of the Hawaii Constitution:

no person shall be required to declare a party preference or nonpartisanship as a condition of voting in any primary or special primary election.

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 12-31 provides more details:

Each voter shall be issued the primary or special primary ballot for each party and the nonpartisan primary or special primary ballot.  A voter shall be entitled to vote only for candidates of one party or only for nonpartisan candidates.

Hawaii’s process, under which a voter is provided with several ballots, then chooses one secretly to vote is is known as an “open” primary.  Open primaries allow crossover voting…

Continue Reading A Challenge to Hawaii’s Open Primary System?

Professor Ilya Somin posts “If You Ever Build It, Maybe Some Economic Development Will Come – The New London Development Project Since Kelo.” 

However, two and one half years after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city and some seven years after the condemnation proceedings were first initiated, little or no economic development has occurred on the condemned land.

. . .

If the Kelo condemnation ultimately ends up creating more economic costs than benefits, that would not be a surprising development. For reasons I have explained in great detail in several articles (e.g. here and here), economic development takings often harm local economies more than they benefit them. Local governments and the private interest groups that seek to acquire condemned land have strong incentives to overstate the benefits of such condemnations, while understating the costs. And it is extremely difficult – often impossible – for…

Continue Reading “I’m Shocked, Shocked to Find That Gambling Is Going On In Here!”

There’s an interesting discussion going on over at The Volokh Conspiracy about the recent $37 million inverse condemnation/regulatory takings federal judgment against the City of Half Moon Bay, California.  I wrote about the decision here and here. 

The comments to Professor Somin’s post are particularly thought-provoking, especially the ones dealing with whether the decision is an “inverse condemnation” case or a “regulatory takings” case.  On one hand, government causing flooding on private property is a classic inverse condemnation situation; the intrusion of water onto private property is the equivalent of the government taking a flowage easement, so it is required to pay fair value for it.  That’s what happened in the Half Moon Bay case.  On the other hand, the “wipeout” of economically beneficial uses and a “physical invasion” are two per se categories of regulatory takings, both of which also occurred in the case. 

So the case is…

Continue Reading What’s the Difference Between “Inverse Condemnation” and a “Regulatory Taking?”