Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

In United Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 28602 (May 22, 2009), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that a developer need not undertake a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw. Rev. Stat. ch. 343, unless the plaintiff shows a substantive change in the project being reviewed.

The April 9, 2009 oral arguments are posted here.

Continue Reading HAWICA: Plaintiff’s Burden To Show Changed Project Warranting Supplemental EIS

To those who attended today’s seminar “Integrating Water Law and Land Use Planning,” thank you.  The materials from my session on “Water Rights, Property Rightsand the Law of Settled Expectations” are below. 

  • Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) – the Hawaii Kai Marina case – physical invasions, regulatory takings, and interference with settled expectations.
  • Maui Tomorrow v. State of Hawaii, 110 Haw. 234, 131 P.3d 517 (2006) – Hawaii water law is not a federal case.  Summary of the decision here.
  • The Hawaii State Planning Act,

…
Continue Reading Materials And Links From Today’s Water Law Seminar

As we noted in this post, the recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decision in Severance v. Patterson, No. 07-20409 (Apr. 23, 2009) is garnering a lot of commentary for the dissenting judge’s opening ad hominem and the majority’s terse response.  Earlier, we summarized the substantive issues in the case, which involve the Fourth Amendment’s seizure requirements in a takings-esque fact pattern — which are, ultimately, more interesting that this distraction — but wanted to comment briefly.

The case involves a Texas property owner — but (quelle horreur!) a resident of California — who seeks to prevent Texas officials from enforcing a Texas statute regulating beachfront ownership because it would either take her property without just compensation, or is an unconstitutional seizure (or both).  The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of her takings claim as unripe for federal review under Williamson County…

Continue Reading The Nerve Of Those Californians, Vindicating Federal Constitutional Rights In Texas Federal Courts!

Several diverse items, for your consideration:

  • Columnist George Will opines about the Empress Casino Joliet case — the one where the Illinois Supreme Court held that aregulation imposing a 3%”surcharge” on Illinois casinos with gross receipts over $200 millionper year, and then gives the money to horse racing tracks is not ataking of property.  The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to review the case. We discussed it here and here (cert petition and amicus briefs included).
  • The ABA Journal writes about George Will opining on the Empress Casino Joliet case.

Continue Reading Monday Round-Up

Several items of interest:

  • California Coastal Commission: “You must farm” – As a condition of allowing a Northern California family to build a home, the California Coastal Commission demanded that they dedicate an “agricultural easement” on their 143-acre parcel.  In other words, as a condition of use, the Commission requires a family that has never farmed its land to use its land for farming.  More about the case from the Half Moon Bay Review here. The complaint is posted here.

    “What the Coastal Commission is asking us to do in return for a building permit is to put the remaining acreage into agriculture easement,” Dan Sterling said. “But it doesn’t stop there. They want control of what and how we farm. And even then, they can come in here whenever they want.” That’s Sterling’s biggest issue. He says he’d lose control over all but 10,000 square feet of

…
Continue Reading Tuesday Round-Up: Forced Farming, Tax Or Taking, RLUIPA Loophole

A cert petition has been filed seeking review of the Ninth Circuit’s decision in McClung v. City of Sumner, 548 F.3d 1219 (9th Cir. 2008), the case in which the court held:

This case presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit — whether a legislative, generally applicable development condition that does not require the owner to relinquish rights in the real property, as opposed to an adjudicative land-use exaction, should be reviewed pursuant to the ad hoc standards of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), or the nexus and proportionality standards of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994). We affirm, holding that the Penn Central analysis applies to the 12-inch pipe requirement. 

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion is available here.  The petition presents three…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition And Amicus Brief On Nollan/Dolan Applicability To Legislative Exactions, In-Lieu Fees

Thank you to those who were able to join us live for today’s teleconference. Here are the links to the additional cases and other items I mentioned (or wanted to mention) in my session on Public Use and Pretext Update:

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA Teleconference: Hot Topics In Land Use Law 2009

Here’s a collection of the reports and commentary beginning to come in about the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous opinion in the “ceded lands” case, Hawaii v. Office of Hawaiian Affairs, No. 07-1372 (Mar. 31, 2009):

  • Supreme Court backs Hawaii in land dispute – The New York Times weighs in with a short summary of the case.  The only oddity: “Hawaii Attorney General Mark Bennett (R) asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case.”  Yes, Bennett serves in a Republican administration, but Hawaii’s Attorney General is not an elected position, so it’s strange to see the use of party designation usually reserved for elected officials.

…
Continue Reading Spinning The Ceded Lands Decision