Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

From The Mayor (G): we’re “[t]aking these troubled loans off the hands of the [predatory] banks … and we’re paying them fair market value.” The video just gives you a whole lot of confidence that they know what they’re doing, does’t it?

The elephant in the room Her Honor doesn’t address about one big reason why Richmond has “destabilized neighborhoods” and isn’t enjoying the high prices so typical of other San Francisco Bay Area housing makerts is the horrible crime problem. If there’s one thing Richmond leads the way on — besides novel eminent domain usage that is — it’s crime: the city is consistently at the top of lists of the nation’s most violent municipalities. By all accounts, Richmond should be a housing paradise: across the Bay from prosperous Marin County, it’s outside the fog belt and has wonderful weather most of the time, and has miles of Bay…

Continue Reading Video: Richmond’s Mayor On Eminent Domain To Take Mortgages

That story about Richmond, California starting down the path of using eminent domain to take underwater mortgages is taking on a life of its own. Here’s the latest.

Before we bombard you with links to the most recent commentary and stories, here’s some backstory. Remember how we said this was taking on an “Occupy” flavor and seemed as much fueled by a let’s-get-those-greedy-bum-bankers vibe as by thoughful economics and a careful use of eminent domain? Well, a little digging showed that wasn’t far off. It seems that lawprof Robert Hockett, the guy who came up with this scheme (calling it a plan that “pays Paul and robs no one”) is a Founding Board member of something called the “Occupy Money Cooperative,” which touts itself as a “revolution,” “a cooperative company that offers low-cost, transparent, high quality financial services to the 99%.” (ps: you forgot “sustainable”). Hockett “has…

Continue Reading Mortgage Monday

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • Our Owners’ Counsel colleague from New Jersey, Anthony Della Pelle, has posted some thoughts on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, No. 070512 (July 8, 2013). That’s the case about valuation issues when there’s a partial taking of littoral property in order to erect protective dunes. Tony’s thoughts are well worth reading. 
  • In that vein, on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, starting at noon ET, we’ll be joining Tony and other experts to speak at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s teleseminar on “Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings:

…
Continue Reading Wednesday Round-Up: Koontz Recording, Jersey Shore Dunes, Plastic Bag Bans

Update: Here’s more from the San Francisco Chronicle. As you read this and other stories on the issue, this begins to take on an “occupy” tone and a let’s-stick-it-to-the greedy-lenders flavor. Not a good sign for a considered use of eminent domain.

————————————————————–

Like a visiting relative, the proposal to use eminent domain to condemn underwater mortgages just won’t seem to go away. First attempted in large jurisdictions like San Bernardino County, it initially looked like the idea was petering out.

But now it seems like the idea has found traction in smaller municipalities that appear to be equally desperate such as North Las Vegas, and now Richmond, California, which appears on the brink of using its eminent domain power to take mortgages if the lenders don’t take the city’s offer to purchase. See “A City Works to Save Homes By Invoking …

Continue Reading Hey Look, Free Money!

Remember that decision by the California Court of Appeal which held that the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” exaction was subject only to low-level scrutiny and not the nexus-and-proportionality requirment?

Well, after Koontz, you should not be surprised that the decision has been taken to the next higher level and the California Building Industry Association has petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the case. The petition points out that the lower California courts have reached different conclusions when considering nearly identical ordinances (see here, for example):

Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal. App. 4th 886, 898 (2009), holds that San Remo Hotel applies to inclusionary housing ordinances. The Opinion of the court below holds that San Remo Hotel does not apply to such ordinances. These two published decisions deal with materially identical inclusionary housing ordinances, and so cannot be…

Continue Reading First Post-Koontz Case: City’s “Inclusionary Housing” Exaction Challenged In California Supreme Court

This really was a “blockbuster” Term for the Supreme Court and takings law: no less than three cases (and four, maybe five, if you expand it slightly to include property-owner favorable cases such as Lozman and last term’s Sackett), and as Gideon Kanner noted recently, the CLE sessions are flying fast and furiously.

Here’s another one, with a great angle: our ABA colleague Ed Thomas, President of the Natural Hazard Mitigation Association and the guy who knows just about everything there is to know about disaster preparedness, disaster response, and property rights, is speaking tonight (Tuesday, July 16, 2013, 7:00 pm MT) along with BYU lawprof Lisa Grow Sun, about the Supreme Court’s takings cases:

This session will explore the legal landscape for community development and hazard mitigation/climate adaptation. Specifically, there has been tremendous press coverage of many U.S. Supreme Court decisions this term. One…

Continue Reading Today’s Free Webinar – Mitigation Options Affected by the Supreme Court in 2013: Koontz and Other Game Changers

Here’s one not to miss, not only because it’s free, but because it features our PLF colleague Paul Beard II, arguing and prevailing counsel in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgm’t Dist., No. 11-1447 (June 25, 2013): on Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 2:00 – 3:30 pm ET, Greenberg Traurig and PLF are sponsoring a live chat:

In Koontz, one of the most important Takings Clause cases in recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the doctrine of  unconstitutional conditions established in the Nollan and Dolan cases applies to all land use permit applications – even if the excessive condition leads to a permit denial, and even if the condition involves the payment of money rather than dedication of real property. This extension of Nollan/Dolan principles has far reaching implications for real estate, environmental, and other federal and state permitting actions. The significance and implications…

Continue Reading Upcoming Live Chat: Koontz – How Far Has Nollan/Dolan Been Extended

Late last year, we posted the Complaint in a federal court lawsuit originating on Kauai. In that case, the owner of a property that has been designated for resort development for 35 years asserted that the adoption of a Charter amendment by the County’s voters and a follow-on ordinance adopted by the County Council that together created a new land use classification (“transient accommodation unit”), and severely limit the number of TAU’s was an attempt to restrict the number of visitors and part-time residents.

The Complaint contains three major allegations: (1) the measures are arbitrary and capricious and violate substantive due process as an attempt to limit visitors, (2) they violate the Hawaii Zoning Enabling Act (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-4, the state statute delegating zoning authority to the counties in certain areas for all you land use nerds), which prohibits adopting of zoning ordinances by initiative, and…

Continue Reading Hawaii Federal Court: Kauai Charter Amendment Limiting Vacation Rentals Is A Prohibited “Zoning Initiative”

On Wednesday, July 17, 2013, from 4:00 – 5:30 pm ET, I will be a panelist in the American Planning Association’s above-titled teleconference.  The session was put together by our ABA and OCA colleague Dwight Merriam, and in additon to Dwight and me, includes Professors David Callies (U. Hawaii) and Carol Brown (U. Richmond), John Baker, an attorney with Greene Espell in Minneapolis, and our ABA colleage and fellow U. Hawaii alum Julie Tappendorf.

Here’s the description of the program:

The U.S. Supreme Court ended its term with a decision that will change planning and regulation — but by how much, and will the change be for better or worse? Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District is the most important planning law case in nearly a decade, and already there is widespread disagreement about what it means.

A diverse panel of land use lawyers will examine…

Continue Reading Upcoming Teleconference: Lessons from Koontz – Game Changer or Just a Little Rule Refinement?