Development agreements

Subscribe to Development agreements via RSS

Thank you to those who were able to join us live for today’s teleconference. Here are the links to the additional cases and other items I mentioned (or wanted to mention) in my session on Public Use and Pretext Update:

…
Continue Reading Links From ABA Condemnation Hot Topics Teleconference

Following up on this story, West Hawaii Today reports “Attorneys argue against Supreme Court ruling on bypass,” about whether a second attempt to condemn property ostensibly for a road ispretextual when the court determined the first attempt was unconstitutional and nothing changed:

Attorneys for the Richards family and theCoupe Trust, in documents filed in 3rd Circuit Court Friday, argue thatthe condemnation action initiated by Hawaii County in 2005 wasessentially the same as one filed in 2000 and later dismissed.

Disclosure: we represent the property owner in this case.

The Hawaii Supreme Court in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. Dec. 24, 2008) (posted here) held that courts have an obligation to take allegations of pretext seriously — even when the taking is for a “classic” public use — and remanded the case for consideration of evidence of pretext.

Continue Reading More On Pretext In Eminent Domain

As reported in this story from West Hawaii Today, a Hawaii trial court is considering whether a second attempt to condemn property ostensibly for a road is pretextual when it determined the first attempt was unconstitutional. Disclosure: we represent the property owner in this case.

“Classic” Uses Not Immune

In County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. Dec. 24, 2008) (posted here), the Hawaii Supreme Court held that even when a taking appears to be for a public purpose, the government’s assertions “need not be taken at face value where there is evidence that the stated purpose might be pretextual,” Id. at 644. The court held that courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext even when a “classic” use such as a road is involved, and “the single fact that a project is a road does not per se make it a…

Continue Reading Determining Eminent Domain Pretext In Serial Takings

The modified opinion in Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), a case we summarized here, has been further modified in this order. The latest modifications do not alter the judgment that the a city could notincrease an in-lieu affordable housing exaction from $734 to $21,000per house in a proposed development, because it failed to show the increase was attributable tothe development.Continue Reading Out-Of-Proportion In-Lieu Affordable Housing Exaction Opinion Modified

In Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), the California District Court of Appeal held that the city could not increase an in-lieu affordable housing exaction from $734 to $21,000 per house, because it failed to show the increase was attributable to the development.

The City of Patterson entered into a development agreement with the landowner in which the city agreed the owner would pay only those affordable housing fees in effect at the time the agreement was executed. The agreement recognized, however, that the exaction may be increased and that the city was preparing an “updated analysis.” The owner agreed to pay the revised exaction, provided it was “reasonably justified.” Predictably, the city revisited the exaction schedule and after study that changed the methodology of calculating the fee, revised it to $20,946 per market rate unit. After…

Continue Reading Cal. Court of Appeal Strikes Down Out-Of-Proportion In-Lieu Affordable Housing Exaction

Some interesting reports today:

  • Hawaiians urge Obama to step in on ceded lands –  an AP story reporting that “Hawaii legislators and legal groups are asking President Barack Obama to intervene in the Hawaiian lands case set to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court next week.” (via KPUA.net). The Obama Administration has “intervened” in the case, but not in a way the groups probably had in mind: the acting Solicitor General sought and was granted 10 minutes oforal argument time to support the State of Hawaii’s argument, as noted here. “The groups believe leftover appointees of former President George W. Bush are arguing a position that’s inconsistent with Obama’s views.” That would be odd, if true,

…
Continue Reading “Ceded Lands” Case, Land Use Round-Up

Here are the links to the cases that I spoke about in my session in today’s seminar “Supreme Court, Regulatory Takings and Eminent Domain Update.”  Not all of the cases we discussed today are included below, so if you would like a link or more information about a case that is not listed, please email me at rht@hawaiilawyer.com and I will send it to you.

The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:

We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.

Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here:  Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.

  • No private right of action to enforce zoning – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.,119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008), held that a private party had nostanding to enforce the state’s land use laws. The Hawaii Supreme Courtrejected certiorari review of the case.  Disclosure: we represent thelandowner. More here.

Continue Reading Materials From 2/20/2009 Land Use Seminar

The circuit court has scheduled the next steps in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Haw. Dec. 24, 2008), the case in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held that the government must pay damages to a property owner when an attempt to take property by eminent domain fails, and that courts have an obligation to examine claims that the government’s asserted public purpose for a taking is pretextual, even when the taking is for a “classic” public use. The Court remanded the case to the circuit court for a consideration of the amount of damages owed to the property owners, and the pretext issue. [Disclosure: we represent the property owners.]

The schedule for the case is reported by West Hawaii Today here.Continue Reading Schedule In Kona Eminent Domain Pretext Case

To those who attended Thursday’s and Friday’s conference, thank you.  Here are the cases and other materials I mentioned in my portion:

  • No private right of action to enforce zoning – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.,119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008), held that a private party had nostanding to enforce the state’s land use laws. The Hawaii Supreme Courtrejected certiorari review of the case.  Disclosure: we represent thelandowner. More here.
  • Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, the appealnow pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals.  The issue in thatcase is whether the state or littoral landowners are entitled toownership of accreted land. In “Act 73,” the legislature declared thatshoreline land naturally accreted belongs to the State of Hawaii and ispublic property.  The act overturned the age-old rule of shorelineaccretion and erosion, which held that beachfront owners lose ownershipof land when it erodes, but gain it when it accretes.  Instead of thesebalanced rules, Act 73 made the erosion/accretion equation one-sided:the State wins every time.  We filed an amicus brief in the appeal, acopy of which is available here.

The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:

We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.

Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here:  Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.

  • “Arrow of Time, Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii’ (published by the U. Hawaii Law Review in Feb. 2006). Drop me an email, and I will email you a pdf, or send you a hard copy (tell me which).

Continue Reading Materials From Hawaii Land Use Law Conference

Currently at the annual conference on eminent domain law – as always, well worth attending.

In the morning’s session, Professor Kanner mentioned the recent decision in County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008), which has not yet been published in the official reporters.  The slip opinion is posted here. Continue Reading At The ALI-ABA Conference On Eminent Domain And Land Valuation