Development agreements

Subscribe to Development agreements via RSS

The US Supreme Court today denied review to three cases we’ve been following:

  • Goldstein v. Pataki, No. 07-1247 (petition for cert. filed Mar. 31, 2008) (pleading pretext post-Kelo) – Justice Alito would have granted the petition.  Justice Alito had not been appointed to the Court at the time of Kelo, so this may signal another vote for property owners if this issue ever makes it back up.

Here’s the Order. Continue Reading Cert Denied in Three Cases

The Institute for Justice, the attorneys who represented Susette Kelo in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), the decision in which the US Supreme Court held that economic development takings were not per se invalid, has filed a brief amicus curiae supporting the request for review in Goldstein v. Pataki, No. 07-1247 (petition for cert. filed Mar. 31, 2008), the Second Circuit decision I blogged about here.  The brief asserts:

In affirming the dismissal of Petitioners’ complaint, the Second Circuit held that taking property from A just to transfer it to B is constitutional — as long as the government refuses to admit what it is doing.

Brief at 2.  More on the issues in the case here.  The petition and other briefs are posted here.

Update: here is a story from the New York Sun about the brief (hat tip Continue Reading Amicus Brief in Goldstein v. Pataki Eminent Domain Pretext Case

Today, we filed the Reply Brief for the property owner in County of Hawaii v. Richards,No. 28882, the consolidated appeal from two eminent domain lawsuitsfiled by the County in 2000 and 2005.  I won’t go into detail about the arguments and will let the brief speak for itself since I am part of thelegal team representing the appellant/property owner. 

The issues in the case include:

  • application of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27(1993), the statute that provides that the government must make aproperty owner whole and pay damages when an attempt to take propertyby eminent domain is discontinued or dismissed
  • whether the government may concurrently prosecute more than one condemnation lawsuit at the same time
  • the standards for demonstrating that the government’s claim of public use is pretext to hide private benefit

The briefing is now complete. The appeal is before the Intermediate Court of Appeals of Hawaii, which…

Continue Reading Property Owner’s Reply Brief in Kona Eminent Domain Appeals: Damages for Failed Condemnations, Abatement, and Pretext

As noted in this post, the City and County of Honolulu has sought US Supreme Court review of Matsuda v. City and County of Honolulu, 512 F.3d 1148 (9th Cir. Jan 14, 2008).  I’ve finally obtained a copy of the petition, which is posted here (2mb pdf).  The Supreme Court docket report is here (No. 07-1305).

After detailing the background facts, the petition advances a single Question Presented:

Several lessees of a residential condominium apartment complex (“Lessees”) filed a lawsuit against the City and County of Honolulu (the “City”) challenging Ordinance 05-001 (2005).  Ordinance 05-001 repealed the City’s leasehold conversion ordinance, Chapter 38, Revised Ordinances of Honolulu (“ROH”), the statutory process by which leasehold condominium owners, including Lessees, could purchase the leased fee title to their units, through the use of the City’s power of eminent domain.  Pursuant to Chapter 38, the Lessees executed contracts with the City for the acquisition of the leased fee interests in their condominium units.  However, Lessees never received City Council approval prior to the repeal of Chapter 38, and therefore they were unable under Ordinance 05-001 to complete their leasehold conversion.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals departed from the longstanding policy of judicial deference to local legislative determinations of public use in the exercise of the power of eminent domain and held that the City’s repeal of Chapter 38 may violate the Contracts Clause and/or the Due Process Clause of the Constitution of the United States.

Therefore, the question presented in this petition is as follows:

Whether the Ninth Circuit erred in concluding that the Honolulu City Council’s repeal of the leasehold conversion ordinance may violate the Contracts Clause and/or the Due Process Clause, and whether after the repeal, the City can still be contractually bound to exercise its power of eminent domain to acquire property for the leasehold conversion?

Petition at i-ii. 

Chapter 38 was Honolulu’s version of the Hawaii Land Reform Act at issue in Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff,467 U.S. 229 (1984), and permitted conversion of condominium interests to fee simple, via a condemnation process. In Matsuda, apartment owners applied to the city to”convert” (condemn) theirapartment leases, and entered into written contracts with the city, inwhich the apartment owners each agreed to pay the city $1,000, inreturn for whichthe city promised that after its acquisition of the lease, it wouldconvey it to the apartment owner.  The owners subsequently received thecity’s approvals, but final approval by the City Council was withheldbecause the council was already considering repealing chapter 38, whichit did in 2005. 

Theordinance repealing chapter 38 eventually contained a provisionallowing any conversion proceeding which has been approved by the CityCouncil to be completed, but because Matsuda’s had not received finalcouncilapproval, the taking was denied.  Matsuda and others filed suit againstthe city in federal court,alleging that the repeal of chapter 38 was a violation of the U.S.Constitution’s Contracts Clause.  The district court dismissed the case since in the court’s view, the plaintiffs had no legally enforceable contract with the City. 

The Ninth Circuit held that thedistrict court should have viewed the repeal of Chapter 38 with”heightened scrutiny” because therepeal of Chapter 38 was the city voiding its own contracts, and remanded the case for further proceedings. Acomplete summary of the Ninth Circuit’s opinion is posted here.

Download the complete Petition for Writ of Certiorari.  The Brief in Opposition is posted here.
Continue Reading PING: use of ultrasonographyURL: http://www.kiwibox.com/ultrasoundtech/portrait/IP: 64.191.76.118BLOG NAME: use of ultrasonographyDATE: 02/04/2013 10:46:06 AMinversecondemnation.com: Can a City Bind Itself to Exercise Eminent Domain? Cert Petition in Ninth Circuit Case on Reserved Powers, Public Use, and Contracts Clause (Matsuda)

The County of Hawaii filed its Answering Brief (2.5mb pdf) in County of Hawaii v. Richards, No. 28882, the consolidatedappeal from two eminent domain lawsuits filed by the County in 2000 and2005.   

The issues in the case include:

  • application of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27(1993), the statute that provides that the government must make aproperty owner whole and pay damages when an attempt to take propertyby eminent domain is discontinued or dismissed
  • whether the government may concurrently prosecute more than one condemnation lawsuit at the same time
  • the standards for demonstrating that the government’s claim of public use is pretext to hide private benefit

The brief minus Appendix, is posted here.  The Opening Brief is posted here.  A link to the trial court’s findings, along with a summary of the case is posted here.

Disclosure: I am part of the legal team representing theappellant/property Continue Reading Government Brief in Kona Eminent Domain Appeals: Damages for Failed Condemnations, Abatement, and Pretext

The City and County of Honolulu has filed a petition for writ of certiorari in Matsuda v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 06-15337 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2008), asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.  We don’t have a copy of the cert petition yet, but when we do, we’ll post it.  The Supreme Court docket report is here (No. 07-1305).

Matsuda involved th repeal of “chapter 38,” Honolulu’s version of the Hawaii Land Reform Act at issue in Hawaii Housing Auth. v. Midkiff,467 U.S. 229 (1984).  Chapter 38 allowed for conversion of condominium interests to fee simple, via a condemnation process. 

In Matsuda, apartment owners applied to the city to “convert” (condemn) theirapartment leases, and entered into written contracts with the city, in which the apartment owners each agreed to pay the city $1,000, in return for whichthe city promised that after its…

Continue Reading Cert Petition in Ninth Circuit Case on Reserved Powers, Contracts Clause in Repeal of Eminent Domain Ordinance (Matsuda)

Bulldozed_home “If you can fight blight, why not create beauty?  If not beauty, why not bounty?“

With that phrase, author Carla T. Main, in Bulldozed: “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land,accurately and succinctly sums up the devolution of the Supreme Court’sview of the role of judicial review in eminent domain from Berman, to Midkiff, to Kelo.

Bulldozed is accessible to both lawyers and non-lawyers, andis no dull scholarly summation of the current state of Public UseClause law.  Rather, it places the issues in an understandable contextby framing the legal details with the story of the Gore family ofFreeport, Texas, and their straight-out-of-Forrest Gump shrimpprocessing business.  The taking of the Gore’s property and businessfor Freeport’s “economic development” resulted in the case Western Seafood Co. v. United States, No. 04-41196 (5th Cir. Oct. 11, 2006) (a case I blogged about here).

Continue Reading Book Review: Bulldozed – “Kelo,” Eminent Domain, and the American Lust for Land

Today, we filed the Opening Brief in County of Hawaii v. Richards, No. 28882, the consolidated appeal from two eminent domain lawsuits filed by the County in 2000 and 2005.  I won’t go into detail about the case and will let the brief speak for itself since I am part of the legal team representing the appellant/property owner. 

The issues in the case include:

  • application of Haw. Rev. Stat. § 101-27 (1993), the statute that provides that the government must make a property owner whole and pay damages when an attempt to take property by eminent domain is discontinued or dismissed
  • whether the government may concurrently prosecute more than one condemnation lawsuit at the same time
  • the standards for demonstrating that the government’s claim of public use is pretext to hide private benefit

The brief, minus Appendices, is posted here (1.8mb pdf)

A link to the trial court’s findings…

Continue Reading Opening Brief in Kona Eminent Domain Appeals: Damages for Failed Condemnations, Abatement, and Pretext

To all those who attended today’s seminar, thank you.  Here are the links to the cases I mentioned.  From the morning session on Case Law Update:

  • Franco – District of Columbia Court of Appeals – allegations of pretext cannot be summarily dismissed
  • Goldstein v. Pataki – Second Circuit – government’s claim of public use trump claims of pretext – cert. petition filed March 31, 2008
  • Brescia – shoreline setback and equitable estoppel – HAWSCT holds you gotta get your “official assurances” from the right party
  • Private agreements and public process – development and settlement agreements not a substitute for zoning process

From the afternoon session…

Continue Reading Cases and Links From Today’s Seminar