Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

Both a jury and the Court of Appeals concluded that the City of Milwaukie, Oregon, was liable in inverse condemnation for $58k because when it cleaned out the city’s sewer lines, it cause you-know-what to back up into Ms. Dunn’s house. The City asserted that it wasn’t liable — it didn’t mean to cause the stuff to invade her home — and took the case to the Oregon Supreme Court, which, in Dunn v. City of Milwaukie, No. SC S059316 (May 8, 2014), agreed.

Apparently, “hydrocleaning” the city’s sewer system (the court’s description of a process which sounds to us non-sanitation engineers as nothing more than a giant municipal enema) in this part of town was supposed to be done on low pressure, but higher pressure (1500-2000 psi) was used, with horrible results. Ms. Dunn “heard a ‘loud roar,’ felt her house shake, and then ‘brown and …

Continue Reading Oregon SCT: City Causing Sewage To Back Up Into Home Was Not A Taking

Mark your calendars for next week Thursday, May 22, 2014. ALI-CLE, the good folks who put on our annual Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and Eminent Domain 101 conferences, are sponsoring the above-titled teleconference/webinar. Here’s the program description:

The City of Richmond, California rattled the universe of real estate lenders, trustees, owners, bankers, investors, and insurers (particularly those of residential mortgage backed securities (“RMBS”)), when it proposed to use its eminent domain power for debt relief for homeowners with “underwater” mortgages on residential real property.

Richmond’s proposal has prompted other government entities to consider the plan. They claim that using eminent domain power in this way would benefit the public by providing debt relief for homeowners and help for communities with depressed residential real estate prices. The plan, if adopted by cities and allowed by the courts, would have profound effects on the RMBS, real estate, title insurance…

Continue Reading Upcoming CLE Of Note: Using Eminent Domain To Seize Underwater Mortgages – Legal Issue and Current Realities

Update: PLF’s Dave Breemer on the decision “In a New Victory, Court Blasts Rules Barring Court Access for Property Owners,” while Gideon Kanner adds his thoughts in “Be Still, My Heart! Second Circuit Rules for a Property Owner In a Stinging Inverse Condemnation Opinion.” 

————————————

Check this out, just received: In Sherman v. Town of Chester, No. 13-1503-cv (May 16, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a takings claim was ripe, and that Williamson County does not stand in the way. 

We love the way this opinion starts off, with a literary reference:

Hungry Joe packed up his bags and wrote happy letters home. He had flown the 25 missions required to complete a tour of duty. But thing were not so simple on Catch-22’s Pianosa island. He soon discovered that Colonel Cathcart had just raised the number of…

Continue Reading 2d Cir and Catch-22: Takings Case Ripe, “Seeking a final decision from the Town would be futile”

Here’s an article worth reading, co-authored by our colleague Edward Thomas (no relation, although we often kid that Ed is our brother-in-the-law), President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association, and a fellow who is concerned both with anticipating natural hazards such as sea level rise, hurricanes, and the like, as well as property rights. 

Thanks to permission from the Environmental Law Institute, which has has graciously allowed us to reproduce Ed’s latest from the National Wetlands Newsletter, we’re able to bring you “Turning Koontz Into an Opportunity for More Resilient Communities,” which posits that the sky is not falling because of the Supreme Court’s decision in that case: 

Many did not see the positive side of Koontz when the decision was released. Almost immediately, many commentators viewed the case as a victory for property owners and a defeat for government regulation. Many alarmist articles were written…

Continue Reading New Article Of Note: Turning Koontz Into an Opportunity for More Resilient Communities

The case that seemingly wouldn’t end — Coy Koontz, Jr.’s continuation of his late father’s case against the St. Johns River Water Management District over the WMD’s demand that they “pay to play” — has ended with its eighth appellate decision (including the now-famous visit to the U.S. Supreme Court), with another win for Koontz.

In St. Johns River Water Management District v. Koontz, No. 5D06-01116 (Apr. 30, 2014), the Florida District Court of Appeals made short work of the WMD’s argument that there were some loose threads left over from the prior decisions. The opinion doesn’t say much about the substantive law, except to say “we said this all before, and we haven’t changed our minds.” 

Because our decision in Koontz IV is entirely consistent with the decision of the United States Supreme Court, we adopt and reaffirm Koontz IV in its entirety and affirm the judgment below. We…

Continue Reading Fla App In Koontz VIII: We Were Right Before, Koontz Wins Again

[Note: we were all set to be the “firstest with the mostest” on these issues, but, as is often the case, Professor Kanner beat us to the punch (“The Clippers and Eminent Domain – It Was Only a Matter of Time“).]

What we’re talking about, of course, is the recent (and ongoing) controversy about the racist statements (allegedly) made by Donald Sterling, the owner of the Los Angeles Clippers professional basketball team, and the reactions, which include “Eminent Domain: The Real Solution to Scumbag Sports Owners.” In that piece, someone named Harvey Wasserman opines that the owners of the Clippers — and the Washington, D.C., professional football franchise — do not deserve to own their respective teams: 

Why do we allow our precious sports clubs to be the playthings of a bunch of wealthy degenerates?

Why aren’t the football, baseball, basketball, hockey and other major…

Continue Reading Use Eminent Domain To “Redevelop” A Sports Franchise, And Take It From An Undeserving Owner?

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • “Flash Boys and the Transportation Corridor Act” – from the North Carolina Land Use Litigator blog, some thoughts about the recent NC Supreme Court decision that we described as a “muddled hash.” This is the one in which the court denied class certification to the claims of 800+ property owners whose land has been blighted by the Map Act, a statute that allows the NC DOT to prohibit the development of parcels where the DOT wants to put a future highway. In a recent story on the case by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, we said this about the case: “‘I’ve read the decision a couple of times since it was published and it still is kind of inexplicable to me,’ he said in a phone interview.’It’s somewhat frustrating because you can’t quite figure out what the court’s analysis is and where that leaves

…
Continue Reading Thursday Round-Up: NC Beltway Blight Case, Precondemnation Entry Statute Unconstitutional, Why Buy Land You Can Get For Free?

Today is Good Friday, an official state holiday in Hawaii, so we’re reposting our annual recounting of how it came to be that the State commemorates the date of the crucifixion, and how that squares with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 

Turns out that it doesn’t really. It’s just coincidence that the “spring holiday” occurs on the same day, and it’s plausible that the State had a secular purpose when it officially sanctified “a religious holiday observed primarily by Christians commemorating the crucifixion of Jesus Christ and his death at Calvary.” 

Or so says the Ninth Circuit.

Related articles
Orthodox Bulgarians Mark Good Friday
Good Friday marked in Holy Land

Continue Reading Don’t Forget To Celebrate The Secular Good Friday Holiday Today, By Going Shopping Or Something

Here’s an interesting case upcoming on the Hawaii Supreme Court’s oral argument calendar that is worth following. (April 29, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. – the court is taking the show on the road, and the arguments will be at the gym at Kealakehe High School, in Kailua-Kona, on the Big Island.)

In Molfino v. Yuen, No. SCWC-10-150 (cert. app. filed Dec. 9, 2013), the petitioner asks whether a county government has any obligation to maintain accurate and complete records. Your first reaction may be “well, duh.” But like many other things in the legal business, it isn’t necessarily as simple as all that. Indeed, the Intermediate Court of Appeals concluded in a Summary Disposition Order (Aug. 28, 2014) that government does not have an obligation to keep its own records accurately. The ICA relied on a 1986 Hawaii Supreme Court case which held:

Without a reasonable and proper limitation of…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Considering Whether A County Has A Duty To Maintain Accurate Public Records

It’s Friday, so we’re slacking a bit on the blogging. But our colleagues at the Nossaman firm have given us a couple of good pieces for our reading enjoyment.

  • First is “9th Circ. Simplifies Enviro Process For Transit Projects,” by Robert D. Thornton. If his name sounds familiar, it’s because he’s the lawyer who represented the City and County of Honolulu in its succcessful defense of a federal lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit and the District Court recently sided with the City on the project (see our summary of the Ninth Circuit and the District Court rulings), and the plaintiffs have stated that they are not going to seek further review. In other words, this is probably the final substantive chapter in the major legal challenges to the Honolulu rail project. Mr. Thornton notes that the decision is one “of national importance for transit and highway projects” because

…
Continue Reading Worth Reading – The Last Word On Honolulu Rail, And 2013 Eminent Domain Year In Review