November 2011

Been tied up finalizing one brief and drafting another, so haven’t had time to post, but here’s what we’re reading today:

  • Via the Land Use Law Prof blog comes notice of Professor Robert Ellickson’s latest article, on The Costs of Complex Land Titles: Two Examples from China. This is the paper he presented at the recent Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference in Beijing. His presentation and paper generated a lot of reaction from the other scholars in attendance, and was one of the high points of the conference.
  • A preview of the upcoming California Supreme Court oral arguments (Nov. 10, 2011) on the future of redevelopment in the Golden State, from the California Eminent Domain Report.
  • More from California,

…
Continue Reading Monday Reading

We’ve been thinking a lot about exactions lately.

First, it was the petition for certiorari in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land. Then, late last week the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the California and Texas Supreme Courts, and held in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011) that Nollan and Dolan analysis is limited to real estate exactions, and do not apply to demands for offsite mitigation.

Now we’re back to the West Linn case, since the parties have filed their final briefs, and the Court is scheduled to decide whether to take the case at its upcoming November 10, 2011 conference. So…

Continue Reading Final Cert Briefs In West Linn Case: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

This just in: on November 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has found the vehicle to resolve an issue the lower courts have vehemently disagreed upon, whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus/rough proportionality analysis is limited to exactions of real property. See West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of West Linn, No. 11-299.

The Ninth Circuit concluded it does not, disagreeing with the California and Texas Supreme Courts, which have held that Nollan/Dolan is applicable to all exactions, not just demands for land. Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court weighed in, holding in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011):

Accordingly, we hold that under the takings clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions, the Nollan/Dolan rule with regard to “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” is applicable only where the condition/exaction sought by…

Continue Reading Fla S Ct: Nollan/Dolan Applies Only To Exactions Of Land

ZPLR_11_2011Here’s an article I recently published in the Zoning and Planning Law Report, Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings Law: What Counts as “Property?”, 34 Zoning & Planning Law Report (Thomson | West 2011).

If you subscribe to ZPLR, look for it in the mail (and if you don’t, you should).

If you are not a subscriber (and again, you really should subscribe, ZPLR is one of the better ways, along with Gideon Kanner’s Just Compensation, to keep up with the latest goings-on), the good people at West provide this freebie, as authors are allowed to post their own articles on their web site. So here you go.

Thomas, Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings Law: What Counts as “Property?” 34 Zoning & Planning Law ……

Continue Reading New Article: What Counts As “Property” In Regulatory Takings Law?

Yesterday, I gave an informal presentation to the Natural Resources Section of the Hawaii State Bar Association about the case currently pending in the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the ability of property owners to challenge a determination by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that their property contained “wetlands” under the Clean Water Act, Sackett v. United States, No. 10-1062 (cert. granted June 28, 2011).

We videotaped the session, and (if tech cooperates) we will post the video. But in the meantime, stream the audio below, or download the 45mb mp3 here:

Here are the links to the briefs that have been filed in the case (so far):

  • The amici brief filed by several states, including Hawaii, in support of the property owners.
  • Here are the cert stage briefs.

    Here‘s the Court’s docket report. We will post the…

    Continue Reading Podcast: Sackett v. EPA – SCOTUS Preview: Immediate Judicial Review, Or Death By A Thousand Days?

    Whenever a judge turns to rational-basis analysis, he’s basically saying, ‘You think two plus two equals five, and I don’t know how to add.’ –

    Professor Richard Epstein, at an interesting debate sponsored earlier this evening by the Columbia Law School Federalist Society. Professor Epstein and Chief Judge Alex Kozinski (9th Cir.) debated the merits of Kelo v. City of New London (2005). Professor Epstein attacked Kelo and Chief Judge Kozinski defended the decision.

    Via Above the Law and Dwight Merriam. Continue Reading Epstein On Kelo’s Rational Basis Test: “You think two plus two equals five, and I don’t know how to add.”

    This has been a pretty good week for my St. Louis colleague Thor Hearne.

    First, he obtained summary judgment in the Court of Federal Claims for the property owners in a rails-to-trails case, Dana R. Hodges Trust v. United States, No. 09-289 L (Oct. 25, 2011). Next, his Cardinals come back from the edge to take the World Series. And now comes Rogers v. United States, No. 07-273L (Oct. 31, 2011), another good decision for property owners from the CFC. 

    Rogers involves the appraisal standard applied in a partial takings case. As Thor writes:

    The case involves a partial taking of an easement. Under the National Trails Act the federal government converted an abandoned railroad easement into a public recreational trail. Under Florida law the owner of the fee estate had the right to exclusive and unencumbered use and possession of their land. But, the federal law…

    Continue Reading Another Good Decision From The Court Of Federal Claims