May 2014

We’re straying outside the usual subjects of this blog (but not that far, since we also do a lot of work related to municipal governments and constitutional law). 

Our “home” in the American Bar Association is the Section of State & Local Government Law (we’re Chair of the Section’s Eminent Domain Law group), has put together a webinar about the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway that may be of interest to. Here’s a description of the program:

“To pray or not to pray?” That was the question in Town of Greece v. Galloway, a case in which a sharply divided U.S. Supreme Court held that town council meetings could open with a prayer without violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. This program, featuring a panel of nationally-recognized expert practitioners and scholars, will take a first look at the various opinions issued by the…

Continue Reading CLE Of Interest: “Legislative Prayer, Tradition, and the Establishment Clause”

As a cost-saving measure, Austin, Texas’s utility department had a “wait until it breaks” power line inspection policy, and one day, the lines broke.

Unfortunately, the broken power lines caused the Steiner Ranch wildfire which destroyed 23 homes. Insurance companies and uninsured homeowners sued the city, alleging tort and inverse condemnation claims. Sound familiar? 

When the trial court refused to dismiss the claims, the city sought review in the Texas Court of Appeals (Third District), which reversed. City of Austin v. Liberty Mutual Ins., No. 03-13-00551-CV (May 16, 2014). The court held that to properly plead an inverse condemnation claim in Texas, the plaintiff “it is not enough merely to allege that the act causing the damage was intentional. Rather, a party must allege that the governmental entity intended the resulting damage, or at least knew that the damage was substanitally certain to occur.” Slip op. at…

Continue Reading Tex App: Wildfire Not A Taking Unless Gov’t Meant To Cause It

Both a jury and the Court of Appeals concluded that the City of Milwaukie, Oregon, was liable in inverse condemnation for $58k because when it cleaned out the city’s sewer lines, it cause you-know-what to back up into Ms. Dunn’s house. The City asserted that it wasn’t liable — it didn’t mean to cause the stuff to invade her home — and took the case to the Oregon Supreme Court, which, in Dunn v. City of Milwaukie, No. SC S059316 (May 8, 2014), agreed.

Apparently, “hydrocleaning” the city’s sewer system (the court’s description of a process which sounds to us non-sanitation engineers as nothing more than a giant municipal enema) in this part of town was supposed to be done on low pressure, but higher pressure (1500-2000 psi) was used, with horrible results. Ms. Dunn “heard a ‘loud roar,’ felt her house shake, and then ‘brown and …

Continue Reading Oregon SCT: City Causing Sewage To Back Up Into Home Was Not A Taking

Mark your calendars for next week Thursday, May 22, 2014. ALI-CLE, the good folks who put on our annual Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and Eminent Domain 101 conferences, are sponsoring the above-titled teleconference/webinar. Here’s the program description:

The City of Richmond, California rattled the universe of real estate lenders, trustees, owners, bankers, investors, and insurers (particularly those of residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”)), when it proposed to use its eminent domain power for debt relief for homeowners with “underwater” mortgages on residential real property.

Richmond’s proposal has prompted other government entities to consider the plan. They claim that using eminent domain power in this way would benefit the public by providing debt relief for homeowners and help for communities with depressed residential real estate prices. The plan, if adopted by cities and allowed by the courts, would have profound effects on the RMBS, real estate, title insurance…

Continue Reading Upcoming CLE Of Note: Using Eminent Domain To Seize Underwater Mortgages – Legal Issue and Current Realities

Update: PLF’s Dave Breemer on the decision “In a New Victory, Court Blasts Rules Barring Court Access for Property Owners,” while Gideon Kanner adds his thoughts in “Be Still, My Heart! Second Circuit Rules for a Property Owner In a Stinging Inverse Condemnation Opinion.” 

————————————

Check this out, just received: In Sherman v. Town of Chester, No. 13-1503-cv (May 16, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a takings claim was ripe, and that Williamson County does not stand in the way. 

We love the way this opinion starts off, with a literary reference:

Hungry Joe packed up his bags and wrote happy letters home. He had flown the 25 missions required to complete a tour of duty. But thing were not so simple on Catch-22’s Pianosa island. He soon discovered that Colonel Cathcart had just raised the number of…

Continue Reading 2d Cir and Catch-22: Takings Case Ripe, “Seeking a final decision from the Town would be futile”

We’ve been tied up with some filings, and have not been able to get to our promised review of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Horne v. United States. We will do so once we put one more  brief to bed, but until then, our colleagues in the Regulatory Takings Bar have published some thoughts:

  • The Horne Case Down the Tubes Again – Professor Gideon Kanner weighs in: “We are reminded of the insight of Fred Bosselman who once observed that property owners in inverse condemnation cases are denied due process of law, not by getting too little of it, but rather too much.”
  • The Grapes of Wrath Part II – A Return to Horne – Ben Rubin at the California Eminent Domain Report writes: “The Ninth Circuit found that as the Marketing Order operated against personal, rather than real, property, and because the Hornes conceded that they did

…
Continue Reading Raisin Hell – Links To Reports On Horne

We offer this one to you without comment, since we haven’t had a chance to read anything more than the abstract. Sounds intriguing, no? 

This Article proposes a paradigm shift in takings law, namely “inclusionary eminent domain.” This new normative concept provides a framework that molds eminent domain takings and economic redevelopment into an inclusionary land assembly model equipped with multiple tools to help guide municipalities, private developers and communities construct or preserve affordable housing developments. The tools to achieve this include Community Benefit Agreements (“CBAs”), Land Assembly Districts (“LADs”), Community Development Corporations (“CDCs”), Land Banks (“LABs”), Community Land Trusts (“CLTs”) and Neighborhood Improvement Districts (“NIDs”). The origin of the concept derives from the zoning law context, where exclusionary zoning in the suburbs excluded affordable housing for the poor. Courts intervened, applying exclusionary zoning doctrines, which led to the enactment of inclusionary zoning programs to achieve a fair share …

Continue Reading New Article: “Inclusionary Eminent Domain,” A “Paradigm Shift In Takings Law”

Those of us who have been in the courtroom when the U.S. Supreme Court has conducted its sessions over the past decades will certainly recall the fairly tall guy in the fancy suit guiding the lawyers, press, and audience members where to sit, what to do, and the like. That was the Clerk of the Court, William Suter, who recently retired from the job after a number of years doing it.

He’s now a visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, and has authored this short piece, “Executive Power on Steroids.” where he posits that “[i]n four recent Supreme Court cases, the Obama administration takes a crabbed view of individual rights.” Two of the four cases Gen. Suter writes about (see, he’s also a retired U.S. Army Major General) are decisions with which we are familiar, Sackett and Arkansas Game and Fish:

What do these cases have in common?

Continue Reading Former Clerk Of The Supreme Court: Govt “Bullying” And “Strong-Arming” Property Owners

Here’s an article worth reading, co-authored by our colleague Edward Thomas (no relation, although we often kid that Ed is our brother-in-the-law), President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association, and a fellow who is concerned both with anticipating natural hazards such as sea level rise, hurricanes, and the like, as well as property rights. 

Thanks to permission from the Environmental Law Institute, which has has graciously allowed us to reproduce Ed’s latest from the National Wetlands Newsletter, we’re able to bring you “Turning Koontz Into an Opportunity for More Resilient Communities,” which posits that the sky is not falling because of the Supreme Court’s decision in that case: 

Many did not see the positive side of Koontz when the decision was released. Almost immediately, many commentators viewed the case as a victory for property owners and a defeat for government regulation. Many alarmist articles were written…

Continue Reading New Article Of Note: Turning Koontz Into an Opportunity for More Resilient Communities

The case that seemingly wouldn’t end — Coy Koontz, Jr.’s continuation of his late father’s case against the St. Johns River Water Management District over the WMD’s demand that they “pay to play” — has ended with its eighth appellate decision (including the now-famous visit to the U.S. Supreme Court), with another win for Koontz.

In St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, No. 5D06-01116 (Apr. 30, 2014), the Florida District Court of Appeals made short work of the WMD’s argument that there were some loose threads left over from the prior decisions. The opinion doesn’t say much about the substantive law, except to say “we said this all before, and we haven’t changed our minds.” 

Because our decision in Koontz IV is entirely consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court, we adopt and reaffirm Koontz IV in its entirety and affirm the judgment below. We…

Continue Reading Fla App In Koontz VIII: We Were Right Before, Koontz Wins Again