June 2016

20160603_075340

As we head into the weekend, one more reminder about two worthwhile eventss being staged next week: 

  • Monday, June 6, 2016:Airbnb & Zoning: A Planner & Lawyer’s Guide to Short-Term Rentals,” with our ABA and Owners’ Counsel colleague Dwight Merriam, FAICP. From the Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association. Details here. If issues about the “sharing economy” like AirBnB, Uber, Lyft, and similar operations, and how they work in the regulatory environment are of interest, you might want to consider joining us at the ABA: we’ve just formally launched a new group within the Section of State and Local Government Law dedicated to these pressing legal questions. Stay tuned here for a separate post on how to join us.  
  • Thursday & Friday, June 9-10, 2016: Oregon Eminent Domain Conference, Portland. We’ll be speaking at that one. The focus is on Oregon


Continue Reading Seminar Reminder: Oregon Eminent Domain; Sharing Economy Issues

Hawaii News Now – KGMB and KHNL

Hawaii News Now came calling yesterday, looking for commentary about the latest in the case challenging the proposed Thirty Meter Telescope on the Big Island’s Mauna Kea. We obliged.  

As you know, we’ve been following the case. It’s already been up to the Hawaii Supreme Court, which unanimously invalidated the Conservation District Use Permit which the State Board of Land and Natural Resources had previously issued. The court correctly held that the BLNR should not have issued the permit (even if the permit didn’t allow construction to begin) before it conducted the contested case to consider the objections of the challengers. This process, the court emphasized, “lacked both the reality and appearance of justice.” In other words, it looked really bad to grant a permit and only then consider objections. 

The court remanded the case to the Board for a reboot. 

Once

Continue Reading The Latest On The Thirty Meter Telescope Case: Everyone Wants The Hearing Officer Removed

Frisco

The plaintiffs in FLCT, Ltd. v. City of Frisco, No. 02-14-00335-CV (May 26, 2016), owned two adjoining parcels in the Dallas-Ft Worth area at the southeast corner what could be a very busy (and therefore profitable) intersection of two parkways. After checking with the city that the restriction in the Commercial zoning which prohibited the sale of beer and wine within 300 feet of a school wasn’t going to prohibit such sales if they sold the southern portion of the parcels for a school, the owners did so. The owners and their new southern neighbor the school district executed a development agreement that acknowledged that the sale of alcohol on the remaining parcels was okay. Building permit issued. 

A Racetrac gas/convenience store was what they had in mind. But the City amended the zoning code. And that was enough, apparently, to make the planning department change its mind about

Continue Reading Tex App: How To State A Penn Central Regulatory Takings Claim

The issue determined by the Texas Supreme Court in In re Lazy W District No. 1, No. 15-0117 (May 27, 2016), was whether — in a case where one governmental entity is trying to condemn another governmental entity’s property — the trial court must resolve the power to take issue before or after the special commissioners determine value. This was, apparently, an issue in Texas.

Here is the court’s description of the case:

The Water District offered the Lazy W $169,218 for the easement, and when the offer was rejected, petitioned for condemnation in the district court. The day after the petition was filed, without notice to the Lazy W, the district court appointed three special commissioners to determine the value of the proposed easement. When the Lazy W learned of the order, and before the commissioners’ hearing, it filed a plea to the jurisdiction, asserting its immunity

Continue Reading Fighting Eminent Domain, Texas Style: Form Your Own Utility District, Plead Immunity