April 2009

Our thanks to Dwight Merriam for letting us know about these two decisions. 

  • Gold v. Town of East Haddam, No. 18067 (Conn. Mar. 24, 2009) – On one hand, this is a fairly straightforward summary judgment case: are material facts disputed such that a trial is merited?  On the other, it involves the question of whether the property taken pursuant to a referendum was to be used for a school or some other purpose (under Connecticut law, according to the opinion, a taking for anything but a school must be commenced within six months of the vote authorizing the taking, but a taking for a school purposes is subject to some other time limit).  In reversing the court of appeals’ determination that there was a genuine dispute regarding the uses to which the property taken would be put, the Supreme Court held the language of the referendum itself demonstrated

…
Continue Reading Two Interesting Eminent Domain Decisions

Several items of interest:

  • California Coastal Commission: “You must farm” – As a condition of allowing a Northern California family to build a home, the California Coastal Commission demanded that they dedicate an “agricultural easement” on their 143-acre parcel.  In other words, as a condition of use, the Commission requires a family that has never farmed its land to use its land for farming.  More about the case from the Half Moon Bay Review here. The complaint is posted here.

    “What the Coastal Commission is asking us to do in return for a building permit is to put the remaining acreage into agriculture easement,” Dan Sterling said. “But it doesn’t stop there. They want control of what and how we farm. And even then, they can come in here whenever they want.” That’s Sterling’s biggest issue. He says he’d lose control over all but 10,000 square feet of

…
Continue Reading Tuesday Round-Up: Forced Farming, Tax Or Taking, RLUIPA Loophole

A cert petition has been filed seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in McClung v. City of Sumner, 548 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2008), the case in which the court held:

This case presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit — whether a legislative, generally applicable development condition that does not require the owner to relinquish rights in the real property, as opposed to an adjudicative land-use exaction, should be reviewed pursuant to the ad hoc standards of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), or the nexus and proportionality standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). We affirm, holding that the Penn Central analysis applies to the 12-inch pipe requirement. 

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is available here.  The petition presents three…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition And Amicus Brief On Nollan/Dolan Applicability To Legislative Exactions, In-Lieu Fees

Thank you to those who were able to join us live for today’s teleconference. Here are the links to the additional cases and other items I mentioned (or wanted to mention) in my session on Public Use and Pretext Update:

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA Teleconference: Hot Topics In Land Use Law 2009

Thank you to those who were able to join us live for today’s teleconference. Here are the links to the additional cases and other items I mentioned (or wanted to mention) in my session on Public Use and Pretext Update:

…
Continue Reading Links From ABA Condemnation Hot Topics Teleconference