Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

When reading the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into the regulatory takings doctrine which holds that a muncipal rent control ordinance did not qualify under Penn Central (MHC Financing Ltd P’ship v. City of San Rafael, No. 07-15983 (Apr. 17, 2013), we were reminded of the opening line in Andy Williams’ signature tune “Love Story” —

“Where do I begin …”

But before we begin, two preliminary thoughts. First, the district court’s decision finding that San Rafael’s mobile home rent control ordinance worked a taking of the mobilehome park owner’s property because it reduced the value by more than 80% was not some one-off aberration by a conservative district judge out on a lark. No, the decision was by the now-retired Vaughn R. Walker, the same judge who invalidated California’s Proposition 8 in one of the same-sex marriage cases currently before the Supreme Court.

Continue Reading The Ninth Circuit Botches Regulatory Takings Again

This just in: the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in MHC Financing Ltd P’ship v. City of San Rafael, No. 07-15983 (Apr. 17, 2013), reversing the District Court’s decision that the city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance was a taking under Penn Central.

More, after a chance to review the opinion.

MHC Financing Ltd. P’ship v. City of San Rafael, No. 07-15982 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2013)


Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: No Penn Central Taking In Rent Control Ordinance

Here’s one to brighten your day, courtesy of the the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Flordia (that’s Tampa, to all you non-Floridians). In Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, No. 8:10-cv-819-T-23TBM (Apr. 12, 2013), the court held the county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance” that allows it to land bank for a future road corridors by means of an exaction (more details on the ordinance below), is “both coercive and confiscatory in nature and constitutionally offensive in both content and operation.” Slip op. at 4.

We’ve seen this situation before — the government wants to build roads, but it either doesn’t have the money to buy or condemn the necessary property to do so, or it simply figures it can get it another way. The county had such plans, and designated future transportation corridors on its comprehensive plans. In 2005, the county adopted the…

Continue Reading Fla Fed Ct: Exaction Scheme Is “Constitutional Mischief” To Avoid “Nettlesome Payment of ‘Just Compensation’”

Earlier today, the Supreme Court considered whether to grant review in City of Tombstone v. United States, No. 12-1069 (cert. petition filed Feb. 27, 2013).

The City of Tombstone‘s cert petition asks whether the city “is likely to succeed on the merits of the claim that the Forest Service violated the Tenth Amendment by … [impeding] restoration of essential municipal infrastructure during a State of Emergency.”

  • Here’s the amici brief we filed in support of the city.
  • Here’s the amicus brief by a coalition of Arizona/New Mexico counties. 

While we await next week’s order announcing whether the Court will hear the case, here’s the Federalist Society’s podcast of a recent debate on the issues in the case:

Tombstone, Arizona, calls itself “the town too tough to die,” but it’s gone to court to challenge the federal government’s restriction on access to nearby national forest land that the city…

Continue Reading Podcast On The Tombstone Federal Lands Access Case

Check out the opinion of the Indiana Supreme Court in Utility Center, Inc. v. City of Fort Wayne, No. 90S04-1208-PL-450 (Apr. 11, 2013. The issue is what the term “rehear … de novo” means in Indiana’s eminent domain code relating to condemnations by cities and towns, which provides for such review by trial courts on administrative appeal from a valuation assessment by a municipal works board. The city had the option to condemn the property either under that provision, or under the general eminent domain statute in which the landowner would be entitled to demand a jury.

The landowner objected to the board’s valuation, and demanded a jury trial. The trial court granted the city’s motion to strike the jury demand, concluding that “de novo” only required a limited review of the administrative record to insure that the valuation decision was made “in conformity with proper legal procedure.”

The…

Continue Reading Indiana S Ct: Meaning Of “De Novo” Rehearing In Eminent Domain Code Not Quite A “No Brainer”

Yesterday, we posted our thoughts on a recent article in Hawaii Business magazine about land use, environmental law, and the Hawaii Supreme Court.

In “‘Let ‘Em Eat Cake’ Comes to Hawaii, Professor Gideon Kanner has added his thought on the article. He comments on the article’s conclusion that “[i]f we don’t like the [environmental] laws anymore, we can elect officials to change them.” by writing:

Hawaii Business magazine have never heard about the principle that statutes have to be constitutional? Would they make the same argument in the case of overreaching criminal laws? Racial segregation laws? Laws impairing the exercise of the First Amendment?

…

Moreover, under the “reasoning” of these idiots, no law need be constitutional because if the legislature disregards a provision of the Bill of Rights, we can tell the complaining citizens to be better electors next time and to elect more constitutionally sensitive representatives.

Lord in heaven! Is there no limit to these guys’ stupidity? Evidently not.

Read his entire commentary here. By the way, before you are tempted to dismiss Professor Kanner as an outlander (yes, Justice Scalia really did call out-of-staters “outlanders” in a recent oral argument), his ties to Hawaii and his knowledge of our ways go way, way back.
Continue Reading Strong Letter To Follow…

oral Several justices (Justice Acoba, Justice Pollock) appeared quite hostile to the DLNR’s position. Their questions went beyond the usual “devil’s advocate” type questions where the questioner is testing a theory, or speaking through counsel to the other justices.

The Judiciary’s web site summarized the issues argued:

On January 11, 2008, Respondents Craig Dobbin and Wagner Engineering Services, Inc. filed a shoreline certification application with the Department of Land and Natural Resources (the DLNR) to certify the shoreline location on property owned by Dobbin. The DLNR approved the shoreline, and Petitioners Caren Diamond and Beau Blair appealed the certification to Respondent Board of Land and Natural Resources (the BLNR). The BLNR subsequently denied Petitioners’ appeal and certified the shoreline. Petitioners appealed the certification to the circuit court of the fifth circuit. The court held in favor of Petitioners, and remanded the case to the BLNR with instructions to give due…

Continue Reading Hawaii Supreme Court Gets Into The Weeds On Shorelines

In “Why big development is so difficult in Hawaii,” Hawaii Business magazine tackles an issue first raised by U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies in recently-published law review article (and follow-up interview), where he labeled the record of the 1993-2010 Hawaii Supreme Court on property issues “appalling” (80% overall success rate for environmental and native Hawaiian litigants, 65% of cases reversing the Intermediate Court of Appeals). As Callies said in an earlier presentation, “ninety percent of the time, government and the private sector are wrong? Give me a break.” (Remember, this is the court that concluded that “western concepts” of property law such as exclusivity are “not universally applicable in Hawaii.”)

Callies’ conclusions sparked reaction from his academic colleague environmental lawprof Denise Antolini, who defended the court’s environmental jurisprudence in an article on the grounds that it wasn’t so much focused on outcome, but on process.

Continue Reading Hawaii Business Mag Story Misses The Big Issue On Development, Environmental Law, And Land Use

Here’s the amici brief of the International Municipal Lawyers Association and the National League of Cities, which urges the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, 693 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2012).

In that case, a 2-1 panel held that the city could not presume that property owned by homeless people in the Skid Row area of downtown was abandoned, and enjoined the city from seizing and destroying it when the owner was “momentarily away” from it.

The city filed a cert petition, arguing that the panel decision resulted in an invasion of vermin and other public health hazards in the area. IMLA’s brief argues:

The Ninth Circuit’s Opinion distorts that balancing act and jeopardizes local governments’ ability to act for the benefit of all their citizens. Like other citizens, homeless individuals have a right to use and enjoy…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Ninth Circuit Homeless Property Case: No One Has Constitutional Right To Leave Unattended Property On The Street

Here’s the amicus brief of the Coalition of Arizona/New Mexico Counties for Stable Economic Growth, supporting the petitioner City of Tombstone in City of Tombstone v. United States, No. 12-1069 (cert. petition filed Feb. 27, 2013). [Disclosure:we also filed an amici brief in the case in support of Tombstone.]

The case arose after the combination of a devastating forest fire and later heavy rains laid waste to Tombstone’s sources of muncipal water, deep in the Coronado National Forest. As the New York Times reported here:

Tombstone’s water system is as old as the city itself, and most of the parts that are functioning, which are few, were damaged last year by rocks and trees dragged downhill by runoff from the summer monsoons. The city set out to repair the system’s connections to three of the 25 springs to which it claims to have a right; connections to the…

Continue Reading Another Amicus Brief In Tombstone Case: Property Clause Does Not Trump City’s Right To Maintain Right-of-Way