Just don’t. Thank you.Continue Reading Plaintiffs: Please Do Not Bring Takings Claims Under The Tucker Act For Cases Involving Traffic Tickets
Video: Richmond’s Mayor On Eminent Domain To Take Mortgages
From The Mayor (G): we’re “[t]aking these troubled loans off the hands of the [predatory] banks … and we’re paying them fair market value.” The video just gives you a whole lot of confidence that they know what they’re doing, does’t it?
The elephant in the room Her Honor doesn’t address about one big reason why Richmond has “destabilized neighborhoods” and isn’t enjoying the high prices so typical of other San Francisco Bay Area housing makerts is the horrible crime problem. If there’s one thing Richmond leads the way on — besides novel eminent domain usage that is — it’s crime: the city is consistently at the top of lists of the nation’s most violent municipalities. By all accounts, Richmond should be a housing paradise: across the Bay from prosperous Marin County, it’s outside the fog belt and has wonderful weather most of the time, and has miles of Bay
Continue Reading Video: Richmond’s Mayor On Eminent Domain To Take Mortgages
Federal Courts Can’t Be “Super Zoning Boards,” But They Can Be Hall Monitors
We’ve ranted extensively about how the takings-only ripeness rules of Williamson County just don’t hold water, but until the Supreme Court revisits and overrules that decision, we’re stuck with it. The federal courts we’re told, just don’t like sitting as “super zoning boards of appeal,” and adjudicating federal constitutional issues are simply beneath Article III judges when something as “local” as land use law is involved. See here at p. 11 for an example.
Well here’s an example of what those federal judges do spend their time on: a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit (complete with a 21-page dissent) about a guy who crapped his pants in a public restroom.
Al Roker, we got our eyes on you.
Turns out it was a restroom in a federal courthouse. Bad for the guy, who gets charged with willfully damaging federal property. We’ll
Continue Reading Federal Courts Can’t Be “Super Zoning Boards,” But They Can Be Hall Monitors
Mortgage Monday
That story about Richmond, California starting down the path of using eminent domain to take underwater mortgages is taking on a life of its own. Here’s the latest.
Before we bombard you with links to the most recent commentary and stories, here’s some backstory. Remember how we said this was taking on an “Occupy” flavor and seemed as much fueled by a let’s-get-those-greedy-bum-bankers vibe as by thoughful economics and a careful use of eminent domain? Well, a little digging showed that wasn’t far off. It seems that lawprof Robert Hockett, the guy who came up with this scheme (calling it a plan that “pays Paul and robs no one”) is a Founding Board member of something called the “Occupy Money Cooperative,” which touts itself as a “revolution,” “a cooperative company that offers low-cost, transparent, high quality financial services to the 99%.” (ps: you forgot “sustainable”). Hockett “has
Fed Chair Bernanke Must Testify In AIG Takings Case
Remember that “audacious” case filed in the Court of Federal Claims by überlawyer David Boies on behalf of Starr International seeking $35 billion in just compensation for the federal takeover of AIG?
Well, it’s moving along, and apparently is in discovery (every lawyer’s favorite part of the case). Boies sought the deposition testimony of Fed Chair Ben Bernanke about his “personal involvement in the Government’s decision to bail out American International Group, Inc. (‘AIG’) in September 2008, and his knowledge of the specific governmental actions taken to implement the bailout.” Mr. Bernanke didn’t want to testify, claiming that as a “high-level government official,” the plaintiffs had to show that the information sought was not merely relevant under the usual discovery rules, but essential to the case, not not obtainable elsewhere. I’ve got better things to do, so stop bothering me and get this information from someone else, argued
Continue Reading Fed Chair Bernanke Must Testify In AIG Takings Case
Wednesday Round-Up: Koontz Recording, Jersey Shore Dunes, Plastic Bag Bans
Here’s what we’re reading today:
- Here’s the recording of the recent webinar on the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgm’t Dist., No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013), featuring Paul Beard II, arguing and prevailing counsel. Go here, sign in, and listen for free.
- Our Owners’ Counsel colleague from New Jersey, Anthony Della Pelle, has posted some thoughts on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, No. 070512 (July 8, 2013). That’s the case about valuation issues when there’s a partial taking of littoral property in order to erect protective dunes. Tony’s thoughts are well worth reading.
- In that vein, on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, starting at noon ET, we’ll be joining Tony and other experts to speak at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s teleseminar on “Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings:
Continue Reading Wednesday Round-Up: Koontz Recording, Jersey Shore Dunes, Plastic Bag Bans
Hey Look, Free Money!
Update: Here’s more from the San Francisco Chronicle. As you read this and other stories on the issue, this begins to take on an “occupy” tone and a let’s-stick-it-to-the greedy-lenders flavor. Not a good sign for a considered use of eminent domain.
————————————————————–
Like a visiting relative, the proposal to use eminent domain to condemn underwater mortgages just won’t seem to go away. First attempted in large jurisdictions like San Bernardino County, it initially looked like the idea was petering out.
But now it seems like the idea has found traction in smaller municipalities that appear to be equally desperate such as North Las Vegas, and now Richmond, California, which appears on the brink of using its eminent domain power to take mortgages if the lenders don’t take the city’s offer to purchase. See “A City Works to Save Homes By Invoking
4th Cir: Town Waived Williamson County State Court Defense By Removing Case To Federal Court
What’s this, a federal court actually allowing a federal Fifth Amendment claim to be litigated in federal court? Why that’s as rare as hen’s teeth, although it shouldn’t be.
That’s the ruling of the Fourth Circuit in Sansotta v. Town of Nags Head, No. 12-1538 (July 25, 2013), which reversed the district court’s dismissal of a takings claim under Williamson County. The court of appeals held that the Town’s removal of the case to federal court waived the state litigation Williamson County defense. Other courts have rejected the same tactic (property owner does what Williamson County requires and files its takings claim in state court, only to have the government remove the case to federal court under College of Surgeons, and then argue that the federal court should dismiss the case under Williamson County), but it’s nice to see a U.S. Court of Appeals
Fla App: “Pregnant Pig” Constitutional Amendment Took Farmer’s Property
Did you know that in 2002, the voters of Florida adopted a “pregnant pig” amendment to the state’s constitution? Well, neither did we. The amendment, effective in 2008, makes it unlawful for “any person to confine a pig during pregnancy in an enclosure, or to tether a pig during pregnancy, on a firm in such a way that she is prevented from turning around freely.”
Farmer Basford’s pig farm used such “gestation crates,” and he was forced by the amendment to go out of business. He tried other things like peanut farming, but those didn’t work, so in 2010, he filed an inverse condemnation claim and a claim under Florida’s Bert Harris Act, arguing that the pig amendment deprived him of all economically viable use of his far. The trial court dismissed the Bert Harris Act claim, and after a trial, held that he was entitled to $505,000
Continue Reading Fla App: “Pregnant Pig” Constitutional Amendment Took Farmer’s Property
Fed Cir: Invoking “Doctrine Of “Necessity” Does Not Automatically Absolve Forest Service For Taking Of Timber
Here’s one for your civil procedure mavens. In TrinCo Investment Co. v. United States, No. 2012-5130 (July 18, 2013), the Federal Circuit reversed the Court of Federal Claims’ dismissal for failure to state a claim of two California property owners’ takings lawsuit.
The case involved the federal government’s response to the “Iron Complex” fires in Northern California. According to the complaint, the Forest Service intentionally lit fires on the plaintiffs’ properties in order to reduce unburned timber which might fuel the Iron Complex fire. The Forest Service fires destroyed hundreds of acres of timber, valued at approximately $6.6 million. The plaintiffs claimed that the Iron Complex fire would not have burned their land, and sued in the CFC for compensation for the taking. The CFC dismissed, holding that it was not plausible under Rule 12(b)(6) that this was a taking, because the “doctrine of necessity” absolved the Forest Service