Two more amicus briefs in the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (cert.granted Oct. 1, 2008):
The merits and other amici briefs in the case, and links to media reports and commentary are posted on our ceded lands page.Continue Reading Further Amicus Briefs Supporting OHA In The “Ceded Lands” Case
Worthwhile article today from West Hawaii Today (the daily newspaper of the Kona side of the Big Island), “Is county practice legal?” The story details the County’s practice of demanding “fair share” payments from property owners and developers who wish to make use of their properties and seek County approvals:
The fair share cost system assesses developers afee whenever their projects require a rezoning as compensation for theimpacts the projects will have on county infrastructure. Moneycollected through fair share assessments could be used toward road andwater system improvements, new parks and expansion of police and fireservices.
However, a ruling made by 3rd Circuit Court Judge Ronald Ibarra in 2007 in a condemnation proceeding apparently deemed the fair share system illegal.
Thecounty filed two condemnation suits against the Charles and Joan CoupeTrust, one in 2000 and the other in 2005, to obtain a 3-acre propertyneeded to build a planned
Continue Reading West Hawaii Today Series: Is County [“Fair Share” And Impact Fee] Practice Legal?
Florida’s appellate courts have been active lately in the regulatory takings arena. Here are links to summaries and analysis of the decisions.
First, from the Florida Land Use Law blog:
Next, from Grand Theft: Property
Several people have wondered whether the change in presidential administrations may alter the federal government’s position supporting the State of Hawaii in the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (cert.granted Oct. 1, 2008).
Unlikely, according to this post from the law blog at the Wall St. Journal:
The SG makes hundreds of strategic decisions about which lower-courtdecisions the government should or should not appeal to the SupremeCourt, which can accelerate—or derail—an issue and help shape theCourt’s docket to an administration’s taste.
But when a case is granted and the Court looks to the solicitorgeneral’s office for its measured views, says former deputy AG LawrenceWallace, “The dialogue is with the Court. And the Court has traditionsthat have to be honored.”
Some background. On December 11, 2008, the Solicitor General filed an amicus brief for the United States in the ceded lands case, supporting the State’s
Continue Reading New SG Unlikely To Alter Fed Gov’t’s SCOTUS Arguments In Ceded Lands Case
In Zaid v. United States, No. 08-020C (Jan 22, 2009), the Court of Federal Claims held that an attorney who had a one-third contingent fee arrangement with his client did not have a claim for a taking when Congress placed a 10% fee limitation in two private bills.
Attorney Zaid represented two FBI informants who infiltrated the American Communist Party and assisted the FBI for 22 years. The were promised payment but received none. After unsuccessfully representing themselves, they retained Zaid and agreed that he would take 1/3 of any recovery as his fee.
The attorney was ultimately successful, procuring from Congress two private bills to pay the informants $1 million each. A private bill is special legislation providing some benefit to a specific individual. More about private bills here. Unfortunately for the attorney, in the private bills, Congress included a provision that capped his fee at 10%
How’s this for a raw deal: not only does the federal government seize both your land and your home, but it also takes your entire country with the intention of detonating multiple thermonuclear weapons where you once lived. Meaning you won’t be able to return to the homeland you loved for oh, let’s just say a very long time.
Thirty years pass, and after you sue the government for a taking, it settles the dispute by entering into an agreement which creates a tribunal to settle all claims, payable from a trust fund. The trust fund, however, is woefully underfunded and could not possibly satisfy your claims and those of your compatriots (of the money in the trust fund, only 1/3 is designated to actually pay the victims; the other 2/3 is set aside to support the tribunal’s operations). Nonetheless, the tribunal awards you and your neighbors nearly $1
According to this report from the San Francisco Chronicle, the California Supreme Court has denied review of Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee v. City and County of San Francisco, 167 Cal. App. 4th, 84 Cal. Rptr. 3d 486 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008), the decision held:
The Defend Bayview Hunters Point Committee (DBHPC) gathered the required number of signatures on a petition to force a citywide referendum on an ordinance adopting a redevelopment plan for the Bayview Hunters Point community. The City and County of San Francisco (the City) rejected the petition because it failed to include a copy of the 57-page redevelopment plan that had been incorporated by reference in the ordinance when the Board of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco voted to approve it. DBHPC’s ensuing petition for a writ of mandate compelling the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors (Clerk) to accept the referendum petition was denied by the trial court, and this appeal followed. We
Continue Reading Cal. Supreme Court Won’t Review San Francisco Redevelopment Initiative
Thanks to Charley Foster for pointing out this podcast of Susette Kelo’s recent appearance at the Cato Institute’s forum about the book Little Pink House: A True Story of Defiance and Courage, by Jeff Benedict (available from Amazon here):
The mp3 of the podcast can also be downloaded directly here.Continue Reading Cato Institute Podcast: A Story Of Eminent Domain Abuse Featuring Susette Kelo
In her state of the state address today, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle had this to say about the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (cert.granted Oct. 1, 2008):
Before concluding I want to take a moment to speakabout the case pending before the United States Supreme Court involvingthe issue of ceded lands.
The issue involved in this case is not whether ceded lands should or should not be sold.
Rather the issue involves the fundamental question ofwhether the State of Hawai‘i has clear title to the land transferred tous by the federal government at the time of statehood.
The roots of this case date back to a decision made byformer Governor Waihe‘e in the 1980s to sell certain ceded lands onMaui and Hawai‘i for the construction of affordable housing.
It was a decision he believed was in the best interest of all the people
Continue Reading Hawaii Governor On The SCOTUS “Ceded Lands” Case
The Honolulu Advertiser reports “Lingle wants Ka Iwi coast free of development,” about the Governor’s efforts “paving the way for the final step in preserving the most accessiblewild coastline on O’ahu for generations to come.”
And just how is the Governor proposing to “preserve” this privately-owned and urban-zoned land from the “threat of development,” you ask? “[B]y asking the stateLand Use Commission to reclassify the Ka Iwi shoreline from urban toconservation,” that’s how. In other words, downzone it.
As the article notes, this area has long been a battleground between the right to make reasonable use of private property and at least one segment of the public’s desire to prohibit development. Several cases have arisen from the area, the most well-known of which was the “Sandy Beach” case involving the “5” and “6” parcels down the road from the :
The land, while zoned preservation by the county
Continue Reading Here’s A Novel Proposition: How About Paying For It?
