March 2016

We usually don’t cover decisions under California’s Environmental Quality Act. You could spend your entire legal career doing these kind of cases, and there are other forums which ably follow CEQA. 

But we had to make a mention of the California Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Preserve Poway v. City of Poway, No. D066635 (Mar. 9, 2016), which concluded that a property owner’s transformation of his land from a horse boarding facility to 12 residences did not implicate CEQA, because it shows just how far these “environmental” arguments can go.  

The owner of the “Stock Farm,” a horse boarding facility, wanted to close it. In its place? Twelve homes on one-acre lots. This is Poway, (“The City in the Country“), so the homes would have “enough room for horses.” Apparently, there is no shortage of horse boarding facilities in the area. All…

Continue Reading Reverse NIMBY? Allowing Horse Boarding Facility To Close Isn’t An “Environmental” Issue

No real surprise here: in Southeast Arkansas Hospice, Inc. v. Burwell, No. 15-1946 (Mar. 10, 2016), the U.S. Court of Appeals held that the statutory cap on Medicare reimbursements for hospice care isn’t a taking of the excess over a facility’s actual costs, because the facility voluntarily opted-in to the program:

SEARK has not met its burden to prove the demands for repayment based on the statutory cap are a taking. First, the reimbursement cap allocates the government’s capacity to subsidize healthcare. See H.R. Rep. 98-333, at 1 (1983), reprinted in 1983 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1043, 1043-44 (“The intent of the cap was to ensure that payments for hospice care would not exceed what would have been expended by Medicare if the patient had been treated in a conventional setting.”). Second, SEARK presented no evidence to suggest the cap makes it impossible “to profitably engage in their business.” Keystone Bituminous Coal…

Continue Reading 8th Circuit: Medicare Reimbursement Cap Isn’t A Taking

IMG_0459

The Nollans own a beachfront lot in Ventura County, California. A quarter-mile north of their property is Faria County Park, an oceanside public park with a public beach and recreation area. Another public beach area, known locally as “the Cove,” lies 1,800 feet south of their lot. A concrete seawall approximately eight feet high separates the beach portion of the Nollans’ property from the rest of the lot. The historic mean high tide line determines the lot’s oceanside boundary.

Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987)

From time-to-time, and when we’re in the neighborhood, we like to drop by the sites of familiar (and famous) takings and land use cases. Like Kaiser Aetna (in our own backyard), Dolan, and PruneYard. We’ve been there, done that. 

So there we were in Central California (Ventura County to be exact), and we’re driving up the coastal highway when…

Continue Reading Another Takings Pilgrimage (Unconstitutional Conditions Technically, But Close Enough)

Read this: “The Accidental Abstention Doctrine: After Thirty Years, the Case for Diverting Federal Takings Claims to State Court Under Williamson County Has Yet to Be Made,” by R.S. Radford and Jennifer Fry Thompson, published in the most recent edition of the Baylor Law Review.  

If the title weren’t enough to tell you what this article is about, here’s a summary:

The Supreme Court has never directly reviewed the question of whether, as a general matter, abstention is required or even appropriate in Fifth Amendment takings cases. Yet in a seemingly unrelated decision handed down more than a decade after Williamson County, the Court held that dismissing such cases would be improper under its express abstention doctrines. The Court has thus created a doctrinal paradox: couched in terms of “ripeness,” Williamson County in fact created a de facto abstention doctrine that applies under circumstances in…

Continue Reading Today’s Must Read: “The Accidental Abstention Doctrine: After Thirty Years, the Case for Diverting Federal Takings Claims to State Court Under Williamson County Has Yet to Be Made”

The roof collapsed and damaged the building. In the view of the City, that created an immediate danger so it demolished it. But the building owners had plans to fix it up, and claimed the demolition was a taking. Trial court said no, the Connecticut Appellate Court affirmed:

On the basis of our review of the record, we conclude that the court properly determined, in light of the circumstances shown by the evidence presented at trial, that demolition of the plaintiff’s building pursuant to the defendant’s police power did not amount to a taking. Lawson, Sr., testified that he purchased the subject property for $65,000 in August, 2009, with a goal of renting out eighteen apartment units. At the time of trial, the plaintiff still owned the subject property. There was no testimony or other evidence indicating that ‘‘no reasonable use may be made of the [subject] property’’; (internal quotation marks…

Continue Reading Emergency Demolition Of Damaged Building Not A Taking

The land use and zoning game can be pretty strange to the uninitiated. If that description includes you, here’s your chance to get initiated. The American Planning Association is sponsoring a webinar about “Rules of the Game: A Framework for Fair and Effective Zoning Hearings,” on Monday, March 7, 2016. Here’s the description:

This webinar will cover the legal requirements for public hearings, including constitutional due process considerations, and provide tips on how to more effectively manage these hearings.

Details here. Thanks to colleague Evan Seeman at RLUIPA Defense blog for the heads up.  Continue Reading Upcoming Webinar: Playing The Zoning Game

Here’s the long story short in Metropolitan Theater, LLC v. YES Prep Public Schools, Inc, No. 01-15-00480 (Feb. 25, 2016), a decision from the Texas Court of Appeals:

The theater sued “YES Prep Public Schools” because (allegedly), the school screwed up the theater’s agreement to buy a parcel of land from a third party. How did the school screw up the contract? By purchasing the property from the third party itself, and for more money. The theater claimed breach of contract, fraud, and similar. The school responded that as a “public enrollment charter school” it is a governmental entity, immune from such suits. In response, the theater added a claim that if the school is a governmental entity, then it also was liable for a taking of the theater’s property (the theater’s contract to purchase the land). The trial court dismissed the takings claim, and the theater appealed. 

Affirmed. The…

Continue Reading Public School Was Not Acting As A Condemnor When It Purchased Property Which The Seller Already Promised To A Theater

20160114_125445

As we noted here (“Latest On The Latest Hawaii Takings Case: Unconstitutional Conditions, Statutes Of Limitations, And Vested Rights“) the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii is considering a regulatory takings case (removed by the defendant State of Hawaii from Hawaii courts) involving a stalled development on the Big Island.

At the hearing last month, District Judge Mollway stated she was inclined to grant a part of the State’s motion for summary judgment and deny the rest, and that she would issue a formal ruling by the end of the month. In this order, filed on the last day of an extended February, the court as promised issued its decision. 

Bottom line: the plaintiff’s takings claims (Lucas and Penn Central) are going to trial, the balance of the remaining claims (vested rights, etc.) are gone.

This case came about after a property owner…

Continue Reading Hawaii Federal Court: Get Ready For Trial On Lucas And Penn Central Takings Claims