The Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro discusses Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case being argued in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday.
We will post a preview of the arguments, but in the meantime, check out our resource page here (includes merits and amici briefs, and the decisions of the courts below).Continue Reading Cato Institute Podcast On Stop The Beach Renourishment (Judicial Takings) Case
Another very interesting conference call today, focusing on theupcoming arguments in the Stop the Beach Renourishment case, the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in Aspen Creek, and the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision to review Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon. Here arethe links to some of the cases and other topics discussed duringtoday’s call, and other items of interest which we didn’t have time for:
…
Continue Reading Links From ABA Condemnation Committee Conference Call (11/18/2009)
Just a reminder: tomorrow (Wednesday, November 18, 2009), from 2:00 – 3:00 p.m.(Eastern Standard Time), we will be holding the next “recentdevelopments” conference call for members of the Condemnation Law Committee(ABA Section of State & Local Government Law). It’s free, but openonly to Section members and guests.
Members should have already received an e-mail with the callinformation, either directly from the Section, or via our listserv (LG-CONDEMNATION). If you are not a member or have not received the information, email me.
Theseare informal calls to discuss recent developments, get feedback andadvice about pending matters, and to otherwise exchange views.
As this is informal, the agenda is open. But we will be covering at least these topics:
…
Continue Reading Programming Note: Condemnation Committee Conference Call 11/18/2009, 2 pm EST
Here’s the Reply Brief filed last month by the property owner in Leone v. County of Maui, No.29696,an appeal in the HawaiiIntermediate Court of Appeals which is considering, among other issues,the question of when a regulatory takings claim is ripe for reviewunder Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). The brief responds to the County’s Answering Brief (posted here).
In Leone, the trial court refused to consider the owner’s claim that statelaw and local regulations resulted in a regulatory taking of beachfrontproperty on the south shore of Maui. Thetrial court determined the plaintiffs’ federal regulatory takings claim — which they brought in state court, as required by Williamson County — werenot ripe because they should have sought a legislative change to theoffending land use regulations which allegedly deprive their propertyof all economically beneficial uses. The trial court’s decision…
According to this order dated November 19, 2009, the New Jersey Supreme Court has granted the property owners’ petition (available here), and will review the unpublished decision by the Appellate Division in Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, No. A-2963-07 (per curiam).
This is the decision the New Jersey Law Journal labeled “A Bizarre Condemnation” in a recent article. We called the decision “kafkaesque,” since we couldn’t quite figure how the appellate court reached the conclusion which it did.
Why the perjorative labels?
The appellate division held that the government can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation.
Confused? You are not alone. Here’s our recipe for straightening yourself out:
Start here, our summary of the appellate division’s decision. Then, read the property owners’ petition for review. Next, read the NJ Law Journal’s critique (the aforementioned “Bizarre Condemnation”), and the…
Continue Reading New Jersey Supreme Court Will Review The “Bizarre Condemnation”
The judiciary web site has posted the recording of the November 10, 2009 Intermediate Court of Appeals oral arguments in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (HAWICA) here (caution, it is a massive 88 MB mp3 file).
The issue in the case is whether the state, or littoral landowners, are entitled toownership of certain accreted lands. In “Act 73,” (codifed here and here)the legislature declared that shoreline land naturally accreted belongsto the State of Hawaii and is public property. More about thearguments, including the briefs, here. Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners, available here.Continue Reading Beachfront Taking Case (HAWICA) Oral Argument Recording
The property owners have filed their Reply Brief in Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009), the case about “judicial takings” and the rights of littoral owners to accretion.
Oral arguments in the Supreme Court are set for December 2, 2009.
More about the case on our resource page.
Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the Petitioners, available here.Continue Reading Petitioner’s Reply Brief In SCOTUS Beachfront Takings Case
The Hawaii Supreme Court and Intermediate Court of Appeals will be hearing two appeals of note:
Mark your calendars for Wednesday, November 18, 2009, from 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time). That’s when we will be having the next “recent developments” conference call for members of the Condemnation Law Committee (ABA Section of State & Local Government Law). It’s free, but open only to Section members. Members should receive an e-mail with the call information, either directly from the Section, or via our listserv (LG-CONDEMNATION). If you are not a member, see below.
These are informal calls to discuss recent developments, get feedback and advice about pending matters, and to otherwise exchange views.
As this is informal, the agenda is open. But we will be covering at least these topics:
…
Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: ABA Condemnation Law Conference Call – November 18, 2009
More about Klumpp v. Borough of Avalon, the decision from New Jersey’s Appellate Division which held that the government can assert inverse condemnation in order to take property without compensation.
In Avalon stole land, appeal to New Jersey high court claims, the Atlantic City paper reports on the case:
A Moorestown couple is asking the state’s highest courtto consider whether the borough stole a beachfront parcel from themafter the great northeaster of 1962.
Edward and Nancy Klumpp’s Nantucket-style home on 75th Streetwas destroyed by the infamous storm. The couple looked intorebuilding the home over the years, and in 1997 applied for acoastal permit.
By then, the borough had built an extensive network of dunesalong the ocean to protect people from future coastal storms.
The case has resonated among coastal towns across New Jersey.Avalon has fielded calls from a dozen other beach towns that alsohave vacant beachfront lots in…
Continue Reading More On New Jersey’s “Bizarre Condemnation”