Land use law

Subscribe to Land use law via RSS

We all know that despite the heightened Twombly/Iqbal federal pleadings standard, that it doesn’t mean a whole lot if a complaint survives a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. All this means that the court thinks it is plausible that the complaint states a claim. And that the plaintiff gets to keep going. That’s it.

But when takings claims are involved, we also know that courts can be dismissive, and a property owner surviving a motion to dismiss can be kind of a big deal.

In Hunters Capital LLC v. City of Seattle, No. C20-983 (Oct. 16, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington dismissed the plaintiffs’ equal protection claims, but held that the procedural and substantive due process, and takings claims survived. This is the case on which we posted earlier, in which property owners in the part of Seattle known as CHOP (or…

Continue Reading Federal Court: If It’s True That Seattle Provided Material Support To CHOP/CHAZ, That Could Be A Taking

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following. In this Order, the Ninth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc of the 2-1 panel decision in Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020).

Earlier, the panel concluded that a regulatory takings case was not ripe under Williamson County‘s requirement. Recall that in Knick, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the first Williamson County ripeness hurdle — the requirement that a property owner first pursue and be denied just compensation via “state procedures” — but the Court didn’t consider or disturb the “final decision” requirement.

The Pakdels sued San Francisco for a regulatory taking because of the city’s requirement that as a condition of converting a tenancy-in-common to a condominium, the owners must first offer any tenant a lifetime lease. The Pakdel’s twice requested exemptions from the lifetime …

Continue Reading Certworthiness Alert: 2-1 CA9 En Banc Denial (And 9 Judge Dissental) – Is A Takings Claim Forever Unripe Because The Owner In The Past Didn’t Jump Through All Administrative Hoops?

EjqLrfkWAAAB5QF

In between talking about eminent domain-y songs, the goofy cult film “Snakes on a Plane” (yes, we really do have a cast-signed poster of that film in our office), and other fun stuff, we returned to the Pendulum Land Podcast for part II of our guest spot, where we also discussed Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Commonwealth, No. CL15-623 (July 30, 2020), a recent decision from a Virginia trial court about regulatory takings and “damagings.” 

[Stream the podcast above, or better yet, subscribe and become a regular listener. The podcast is both entertaining and informative.]

The Virginia Uranium case involves a long-standing — but “temporary” — moratorium on uranium mining, and the court’s order analyzes Palazollo, the Salt-peter case (Lord Coke alert!), Penn Central, and Lucas.

The court concluded that the inability to mine uranium was a damaging under the Virginia Constitution because it “directly…

Continue Reading In Which We Return To The Pendulum Land Podcast To Talk “Snakes on a Plane,” Eminent Domain Songs, And What Might Be Virginia’s First True Regulatory Takings Case

You know those times you go to the store and try to get a refund on something you’ve purchased, and instead of cash back, you get a gift card, only useable at the same store? Or when, instead of refunding your plane ticket, the airline gives you some limited-time credit for a future flight? Anyone like those?

Well, a fascinating case from the New Mexico Court of Appeals, Premier Trust of Nevada, Inc. v. City of Albuquerque, No. A-1-CA-34784 (Oct. 1, 2020) reminds us of the risks associated with these things.

Albuquerque has an impact fee ordinance which developers must pay to offset the costs of needed infrastructure such as roads, drainage, parks, and public safety facilities. To satisfy the exaction requirement, the property owner could either pay money, build the improvements, or give the city property. If the value of these exactions was more than the impact…

Continue Reading NM App: No Property In Impact Fee Gift Card

This one doesn’t involve a takings claim, but since we’re tracking the cases involving coronavirus-related shut down orders and restrictions, we thought we would post this here too.

In Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, No. 20-55907 (Oct. 1, 2020), a panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected a church’s request for an injunction pending appeal of the District Court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. The church is challenging the California governor’s order that have the effect of restricting religious services even though the orders apparently do not expressly target religious services:

The evidence that was before the district court does not support Harvest Rock’s arguments that the Orders accord comparable secular activity more favorable treatment than religious activity. The Orders apply the same restrictions to worship services as they do to other indoor congregate events, such as lectures and movie theaters. Some congregate activities are completely prohibited in…

Continue Reading Ninth Circuit, Over Dissent, Denies Injunction For Church COVID Restrictions

Here’s the latest development in a case out of Maryland that we’ve been following for a while.

This is the one where Maryland Reclamation Association bought land back in 1990 to operate a rubble landfill. But after the purchase, the County changed its regs to prohibit (guess what) … rubble landfills. Mesne litigation ensued in various tribunals over the years. Eventually, MRA filed a regulatory takings claim under the Maryland Constitution’s takings clause in 2013, and the jury awarded a whopping $45 million in just compensation and interest. Hartford County asserted that MRA should have exhausted its administrative remedies by seeking a variance, and the claim was barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the takings claim accrued in 2007 when the Board of Appeals administratively denied MRA’s variance request.

The Maryland Court of Special Appeals concluded that the “final decision” for purposes of both ripeness and statutes…

Continue Reading Cert Petition: Can A State Agency Decide Whether There’s Been A Taking?

IMG_20190925_175845

Although it is set to launch this Friday, October 2, 2020, there’s still more than enough time to register (and room at the inn) for you to join us for the 17th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference at the William and Mary Law School.

Like everything else this season, the Conference is online (register here), and although we would have preferred to gather in-person of course, the online format has some advantages: the number of attendees isn’t limited by the classroom size (this year’s registrations are at record levels), you don’t need to travel to Williamsburg, and the Conference is free if you don’t want Virginia CLE credit for attending. What a deal.

In our opinion, this is the best legal academy/practicing bar conference on property law. This year, the Conference honors the Brigham-Kanner Prizewinner, Harvard Law School Professor Henry Smith.

Here are the panel topics…

Continue Reading There’s Still Room: Join Us For The 17th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference (Online, Free!)

Well, that didn’t take long: as we surmised back when the CDC first issued its order halting residential evictions until the end of the year due to COVID (see “How Can? U.S. DHS: National Eviction Moratorium (Roscoe Filburn Could Not Be Reached For Comment),” the order has resulted in a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia that alleges the order is unconstitutional.

No takings claim (not the right court to raise a just comp claim), but there’s a lot “there,” so to speak: admin law (CDC exceeded its authority), violation of the right of court access, Supremacy Clause, Tenth Amendment, anti-commandeering, this is an invalid exercise of legislative power under Article I.

No takings claim, but read the complaint anyway.  

Complaint, Brown v. Azar, No. 1:20-cv-03702 (N.D. Ga. Sep. 8, 2020)

Continue Reading Complaint (N.D. Ga.): CDC Eviction Moratorium Is Unconstitutional (No Takings Claim, However)

News just in: we’ve just received confirmation that the Conference will not be in-person in Scottsdale in January 2021, and we’re going online.

Not a big surprise, but still a bit disappointing, and it’s a shame that the circumstances won’t allow us to meet in-person to talk shop and to renew our friendships like we do every year. 

But rest assured we’re making lemonade out of these lemons, and we’d appreciate everyone holding the dates on your calendars to join your colleagues from across the nation for the online Conference. And no, we’re not going to do two-and-a-half-days remotely, we’re paring down the agenda and will be focusing on hot topics, and great presenters. The remote format has some advantages, and we’re taking advantage of the circumstances to plan a conference more interactive and a bit different than usual.

This will also be a great program for first-time Conference participants.

Continue Reading Breaking: News About The 2021 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (Jan. 28-29, 2021)