Development agreements

Subscribe to Development agreements via RSS

California followers: be sure to register and join in on Wednesday, January 4, 2012, starting at 2:00 p.m. PST as Rick Rayl, Brad Kuhn (California Eminent Domain Report) and their firm colleagues present a webinar, “Supreme Court Upholds Elimination of Redevelopment in California – Now What?“

This, of course, refers to last week’s California Supreme Court decision upholding the state legislature’s wipeout of the 400+ redevelopment agencies in California. Join in and find out “now what,” and what happens next.

Details here. Continue Reading California Redevelopment Alert: Free Webinar, Wednesday, Jan. 4, 2012

Battle for Brooklyn film poster

Today was the Hawaii premiere of Battle For Brooklyn, the Oscar-shortlisted documentary film about the Atlantic Yards case. We’re introducing the film and conducting a question-and-answer session after each showing.

Screening information: Tuesday and Wednesday, January 3 and 4, at 1:00 p.m. and 7:30 p.m. each day at the Doris Duke Theater. More information (and ticket purchase) from the Academy of Arts web site here.

Battle-for-brooklyn-flyer

Today’s two screenings were followed by lively questions from the audience. Here are links to the key posts on the case, in the event you want to find out more:

…
Continue Reading Hawaii Premiere Of “Battle for Brooklyn” – Oscar-Contending Docfilm Of Atlantic Yards Eminent Domain Fight

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser published my movie review of “Battle For Brooklyn,” the documentary about the Atlantic Yards eminent domain fight, on the op-ed page. Check it out here or below. More importantly, if you are in Honolulu next week, come to one of the four screenings (details and link to ticket purchase below).

‘Battle for Brooklyn’ coming to rail project near you

Battle for Brooklyn film posterHow would you react if the government ordered you to give up your home or business so a developer could build an arena for his basketball team? Accept what money is offered, or dig in your heels and fight?

“Battle for Brooklyn,” the Oscar-contending documentary premiering in Hawaii next week, chronicles one homeowner’s fight against the city’s taking of his property. But the film leaves open the question of whether he did the right thing, for the right reasons.

The film compresses seven years of events…

Continue Reading Movie Review: “Battle For Brooklyn” — Lessons For Honolulu Rail From A Reluctant Activist

Today’s 6-1 California Supreme Court opinion in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, No. S194861 (Dec. 29, 2011) brings to mind two of our favorite loanwords: schadenfreude (deriving pleasure from the misfortune of others) and schlimmbesserung (to worsen by improvement).

The first because we can’t say we’re crying much about the takedown of California redevelopment agencies, which are collectively probably the largest abusers of eminent domain in the state, and the second because the track record of these agencies in actually accomplishing their stated goals of economic development is woefully sparse.

As we noted here, in Matosantos, the court concluded the state legislature could eliminate redevelopment agencies without violating the California Constitution. While this is a significant victory for property rights advocates, we won’t be counting our chickens just yet. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

  • The California Supreme Court did not drive a stake

…
Continue Reading Schadenfreude, Schlimmbesserung, And The California Supreme Court’s Redevelopment Ruling

As we noted earlier today (“Cal Supreme Court “Redevelops” Redevelopment Agencies“), the California Supreme Court has dealt a stunning blow to the redevelopment-industrial compex in California. Here’s more from media outlets and legal commentators:

  • Governor Jerry Brown issues his shortest press release, ever: “Today’s ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety.” No call for “excessive celebration” for that one. But you know he’s doing an end-zone dance right about now.

…
Continue Reading California Redevelopment Round Up

For those who tuned in to today’s webinar Eminent Domain: Redevelopment Challenges for Local Government, here are the cases I spoke about during my session:

  • County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 198 P.3d 615 (Haw. 2008) (under Kelo, trial courts presented with prima facie evidence that the stated public use is a pretext to cover up private benefit must look to the real motive for a taking even if the taking is for a “classic” use).

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s Webinar “Eminent Domain: Redevelopment Challenges for Local Government”

Today, we filed the Reply Brief (also available below) in the case that asks: after Kelo, when is eminent domain pretextual? 

Last month, we filed a cert petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 242 P.3d 1136 (Haw. 2010). In that case, the Hawaii court upheld the taking of land on the Big Island, holding that the asserted public use was not a pretext to the overwhelming private benefit to the developer of the luxury Hokulia project.

On August 17, 2011, the developer and the County filed their joint brief in opposition. Our brief responds:

After reviewing the Oceanside/County brief, it would be easy to forget why this case is here: they argue the Hawaii Supreme Court correctly applied the rational basis standard for pretext established in Kelo v. City of…

Continue Reading Final Cert Brief In Eminent Domain Pretext Case

Last week the developer and the County of Hawaii filed their joint Brief in Opposition in C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership v. County of Hawaii, No. 11-75 (cert. petition filed July 14, 2011), responding to the cert petition we filed earlier, that poses this Question Presented:

The Hawaii Supreme Court held that a one-to-one transfer of property to a private developer by eminent domain, instituted outside the confines of an integrated development plan, and while the condemnor was threatened by breach of a contract in which it promised to condemn the land for the developer, was not subject to a presumption of invalidity or even heightened scrutiny under the Fifth Amendment’s Public Use Clause. The court concluded that even when “a contract that delegates a county’s eminent domain powers raises well founded concerns that a private purpose is afoot” under Kelo v. City of New London, …

Continue Reading Developer & County’s BIO In Eminent Domain Pretext Case

On July 14, 2011, we filed this cert petition (also posted below), which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 242 P.3d 1136 (Haw. 2010). In that case, the Hawaii court upheld the taking of land on the Big Island, holding that the asserted public use was not a pretext to hide the overwhelming private benefit to the developer of the luxury Hokulia project.

This case presents the opportunity for the U.S. Supreme Court to firmly establish what the Kelo majority and Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinions strongly suggested, but did not need to squarely address in that case: that “unusual” exercises of eminent domain power will trigger a presumption of invalidity, or at least require heightened scrutiny. These independent triggers include when (1) a taking is accomplished outside of an integrated and comprehensive plan…

Continue Reading Cert Petition: After Kelo, When Is Eminent Domain Pretextual?