Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

Recently, the owners of vacation cabins located on leased land in a state park on the island of Kauai filed a cert petition which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review an unpublished decision of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals which held that the State did not run afoul of the Takings Clause when it required the owners to surrender their cabins at the end of the lease.

The trial court determined that the lessees had no property interest when their leases expired. The Hawaii Supreme Court declined review of the ICA’s disposition.

The lessees’ petition is available here, and presents the following question:

QUESTION PRESENTED

The State of Hawaii owns land in Kokee State Park on the island of Kauai. Petitioners, have leasehold estates in parcels on the land and own private cabins thereon. Each Petitioner, or his or her predecessor in interest, bought, built or inherited…

Continue Reading New SCOTUS Cert Petition From Kauai: Is Surrender Clause In State Lease A Taking?

Statelocalcover_1_2010_small The most recent edition of State & Local Law News has an article summarizing the arguments in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). 

That case, which has been argued and is currently awaiting disposition by the Supreme Court, asks whether a state court is constrained by the Takings and Due Process clauses from rewriting the common law rules of property. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the case supporting the property owners.]

In Drawing a Line in the Sand: Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Envtl. Protection, six authors of amici briefs in the case — including me — summarized their arguments. I focused on the “background principles” issue, and the notion that certain common law aspects of property are beyond the reach of state court redefinition:

The “judicial takings” question in…

Continue Reading New Article On Florida Beach Judicial Takings Case

The New York Times’ “Square Feet” column today posted “Lessons on Limits of Eminent Domain at Columbia,” about the recent decision in Kaur v. New York State Urban Dev. Corp.,2009 NY Slip Op 08976 (Dec. 3, 2009). In that case, the New York SupremeCourt, Appellate Division (First Department) struckdown the attempted taking of land north of Columbia University in NewYork City because of the record reflected the condemnor’s claim the properties are”blighted” was a pretext to mask overwhelming private benefit. The Kaurcourt undertook an extensive review of the facts and concluded “thereis no independent credible proof of blight in Manhattanville.”

The article notes:

The Dec. 3 opinion by the New York Supreme Court’s appellate division, which found there was no civic or public purpose or blight to justify condemning Tuck-It-Away’s buildings for the university’s new campus, has unnerved public officials and developers. The Columbia decision…

Continue Reading The Latest On Eminent Domain In New York From The NY Times

Both parties have asked the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals to take another look at its opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (Dec. 30, 2009).

In that case, the court held (1) the Hawaii Legislature took existing littoral accretion when it assigned ownership of the accretion from beachfront owners to the State; and (2) the Legislature did not take “future accretion.” We summarized the opinion here. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus briefsupporting the property owners, available here.]

The State of Hawaii asserts the opinion should not have addressed the claim that land which had accreted prior to 1985 was taken. The State’s Motion for Clarification is here.

The property owners assert the ICA’s conclusion that “future accretion” is not a property interest should be reexamined. The ICA relied on three federal cases from the Ninth Circuit, Western Pac. Ry. …

Continue Reading Motions For Reconsideration In ICA Accretion Taking Appeal

Noparking Many years ago I got a parking ticket, my first. Here’s the story: when I left the car, it was a legal space, no meter. In the few hours I was away, the city public works department erected a “no parking” sign and painted the curb red. The police were equally efficient, and by the time I returned, I had a ticket for parking in a red zone.

I objected and the judge recognized injustice when he saw it.

Years later, the court was not so magnanimous. We represented a property owner held liable for “creating” an obstruction to navigation in San Francisco Bay in violation of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. How did the owner “create” the obstruction, you ask? It refused to destroy those portions of its piers which extended beyond the harbor line.

Why would the owner put a pier beyond the harbor line? It…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Littoral Owner Trespassing When The Shoreline Erodes, Placing Lawful Structure In The Water?

The biggest Hawaii-related case of the year that was not just a local story was the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 129 S. Ct. 1463 (Mar. 31, 2009). [Disclosure: we filed a brief in the case in support of the State, available here]

In a resounding thumping of the arguments advanced by OHA, the unanimous Court held that the Congressional resolution apologizingfor the United States’ role in the overthrow of the Hawaiian kingdomwas just an apology, and had no legal effect. The Court’s opinion is posted here. Our summary of the opinion by Justice Alito is here.

Our thoughts on the case: start with Three Takeaway Points From The “Ceded Lands” Decision, then visit our ceded lands case page for links to more commentary and resources.

The Harvard Law Review counted the case among the…

Continue Reading 2009 Land Use In Review: The Supreme Court’s “Ceded Lands” Decision – Sorry Seems To Be The Hardest Word

No doubt about it, the biggest Hawaii-centric land use related story this year was the continuing saga of the Hawaii Superferry. The case resulted in above-the-fold headlines, blogs devoted to the issue, and at least two trips to the Hawaii Supreme Court. We even live blogged the oral arguments. A summary of the case is posted here.

It generated a huge amount of public interest and had all the elements to make a compelling case: environmentalists vs business, local vs mainlander, the governor and the legislature vs the judiciary, and Oahu vs at least two neighbor islands. A certain segment of Hawaii’s population had from the get-goconsidered the interisland vehicle ferry as nothing less than the DeathStar: a whale-killer, a transporter of invasive alien species, andharbinger of a militarized imperialist government. Others didn’t viewit so malignantly, just as a much needed and long overdue alternativeto interisland transportation, or as…

Continue Reading 2009 Land Use In Review: The Three Lessons From Hawaii Superferry

PICT0319 This post deals with the practical impacts of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii,No. 28175 (Dec. 30, 2009). [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners,available here.]

First, some background for those who have not been following our recent posts on the November 2009 oral arguments, and the decision.

In 2003, the Hawaii Legislature adopted Act 73 (codifed here and here),which declared that title to shoreline land naturally accretedcannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only theState could quiet title to accreted lands. Most critically, the Actdeclared that all accretion not registered was State property.

A three judge ICA panel held that Act 73 took accreted land in existence when the Act was adopted. The ICA agreed with the trial court that the Act rewrote the common law…

Continue Reading Balkanizing The Beach: The Practical Consequences Of Maunaula Bay Beach Ohana 28

This just in: the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175, a case we recently analyzed here.

We conclude that (1) Plaintiffs and the class they represent had no vested property rights to future accretions to their oceanfront land and, therefore, Act 73 did not effect an uncompensated taking of future accretions; and (2) Act 73 effectuated a permanent taking of littoral owners’ ownership right to existing accretions to the owners’ oceanfront properties that had not been registered or recorded or made the subject of a then-pending quiet-title lawsuit or petition to register the accretions.

Accordingly, we vacate that part of the PSJ order which concluded that Act 73 took from oceanfront owners their property rights in all future accretion that was not proven to be the restored portion of previously eroded land. We…

Continue Reading HAWICA: No “Vested Right” To Beachfront Accretion