Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

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…

Continue Reading Reply Brief: Must A Property Owner Seek A Change In The Law In Order To Ripen A Takings Claim?

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:

  • Tuesday, November 10, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175 (HAWICA). The issue 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 belongs to the State of Hawaii and is public property. More about the arguments, including the briefs, here. Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners.
  • Thursday, December 17, 2009, 9:00 a.m. – Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (HAWSCT). The Supreme Court is reviewing the ICA’s conclusion that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343. The application for writ

…
Continue Reading Upcoming Oral Arguments Of Interest

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

Remember the “ceded lands” case? The one where the U.S. Supreme Court held 9-0 that the U.S. had absolute fee simple title to the ceded lands, and that the Apology Resolution was hortatory fluff? See Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, 129 S. Ct. 1436 (2009). We were all over that case, which we summarized here on our resource page.

After it reversed the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision, SCOTUS remanded the case back to the Hawaii court “for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.” Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court dealt with the last remaining thread in the litigation, the claim of one of the plaintiffs who refused to settle. Office of Hawaiian Affairs v. Housing and Community Development Corp. of Hawaii, No. 25570 (Oct. 27, 2009).

Since SCOTUS issued its opinion, all of the plaintiffs but one settled with the state. See slip op. at 2…

Continue Reading Latest HAWSCT Decision In “Ceded Lands” Case: Standing? Yes, Ripe? No.

Here are some recently-released opinions; none so earth-shattering that they merit their own post, but definitely worth reading:

  • People ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Acosta, No. C059064 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 26, 2009) – In an eminent domain case, the California Court of Appeals, Third District concludes that a claim for lost goodwill was not preempted by federal law (the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act).
  • River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, No. 08 C 950 (7th Cir., Oct. 27, 2009) – In a case involving a church’s claims that a rezoning violated RLUIPA, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed the denial of church’s motion for preliminary injunction because the “Church

…
Continue Reading Latest Interesting Opinions

In an order issued yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court granted the SG’s motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument in Stop the Beachfront Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (cert. granted. June 15, 2009). The federal government’s amicus brief is available here.

In Walton County v. Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc.,998So.2d 1102 (Fla. Sep. 29, 2008), the Florida Supreme Court heldthat a state statute which prohibits “beach renourishment” without apermit did not effect a taking of littoral (beachfront) property, eventhough it altered the long-standing rights of the owners to accretionon their land and direct access to the ocean. The U.S. Supreme Court isconsidering whether the Florida court’s reversal of more than 100 yearsof Florida law was a judicial taking, and whether the Florida court’sdecision violated due process.

We filed an amicus brief in the case…

Continue Reading Solicitor General To Get Face Time In Judicial Takings Case

Today, the Hawaii Supreme Court agreed to review Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, 120 Haw. 457, 209 P.3d 1271 (Haw. Ct. App. 2008), in which the Intermediate Court of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplemental EIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 343.

Alink to the ICA’s decision and the opinion of the dissenting judge isposted here. The briefs filed in the ICA are posted here.

The cert application, the brief in opposition, and the amici briefs on the application are here:

…
Continue Reading HAWSCT To Review Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?

Our live blog of the Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in County of Hawaii v. Ala Loop Homeowners, No. 27707 (cert. granted Sep. 2, 2009). 

The mp3 recording of the argument is posted here.

More details on the case below the window.

<p>&amp;lt;p&amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;a href=&amp;amp;quot;http://www.coveritlive.com/mobile.php?option=com_mobile&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;task=viewaltcast&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;altcast_code=7c50a56fae&amp;amp;quot; &amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;HAWSCT Ala Loop arguments 10-13-2009&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/a&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;lt;/p&amp;gt;</p>

The court is considering whether Haw. Rev. Stat. §  205-1 et seq.,gives rise to a private right of action. The core issue in the appealis whether Hawaii’s statewide zoning laws are “laws relating toenvironmental quality” which may be privately enforced, or whether theyare classic Euclidean zoning laws which can’t. The Hawaii Constitution (art. XI, § 9)provides that “any person may enforce” the “right to a clean andhealthful environment, as defined by law relating to environmentalquality, including control of pollution and conservation, protectionand enhancement of natural resources.”

Thecase involves a “new century charter school” located…

Continue Reading Live Blog Of HAWSCT Oral Arguments: Are State Zoning Laws “Environmental” Statutes?