Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

Here is a collection of commentary on the oral arguments in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, heard by the Supreme Court earlier this week. (Our own thoughts here.)

…
Continue Reading Sheetz Argument Round-Up

DSCF3357

If you were looking for deep clarity from the Justices about land use law and whether a legislature imposing monetary conditions on property development always gets the free judicial pass of rational basis review in this morning’s oral arguments in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, you may not discover a lot of predictive insight when you listen to the argument recording or read the transcript.

But it is definitely worth your time to listen or read. Yes, there were some head-scratching moments as several of the Justices struggled with how to differentiate between monetary land use exactions that are subject to the nexus and rough proportionality standards, and other government requirements to pay money such as user fees, tolls, and property taxes that presumably are exempt. But there were also moments of clarity. Important moments.

In other words, there’s gold in them thar transcript hills if you…

Continue Reading Today’s Arguments In Sheetz v. El Dorado County: “[R]adical [A]greement” On The Key Issue

Conf-2024-flyer
Bismarck in January is looking pretty good.

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • Christian Britschgi, Court’s Wild Zoning Decision Blocks ‘Montana Miracle’, Reason (Jan. 2, 2024) (“In an eyebrow-raising decision, a Montana judge has halted the implementation of two laws legalizing duplexes and accessory dwelling units on residential land across the state, writing that they’d likely do ‘irreparable’ damage to residents of single-family neighborhoods.”).
  • Richard Frank, The U.S. Supreme Court & Environmental Law in 2024, LegalPlanet (Jan. 3, 2024) (“First up before the Court in 2024 is this “regulatory takings” case from California…. Over the past four decades, U.S. Supreme Court decisions have developed the so-called ‘unconstitutional conditions’ sub-doctrine of regulatory takings law, but to date have only applied it to individually-negotiated land use permit conditions and fees. California state courts–including in the Sheetz case–have consistently refused to extend the doctrine to broadly-applicable fees and conditions imposed on landowners

…
Continue Reading What We’re Reading Today, Property Rights Edition

Screenshot 2024-01-04 at 09-57-31 Keeping the Surplus Colorado Lawyer

How thrilled are we that an alum of our William and Mary Law School courses, up-and-coming Colorado property lawyer Makenna X. Johnson, has published an article in the area of law we all love (dirt law)?

Let’s just say that we’re thrilled. Makenna writes:

Colorado’s real property tax system resembles Minnesota’s principally in that it provides no mechanism for a property owner to recover any surplus or equity in excess of the taxes and fees owed. Although in Colorado a surplus may be retained by either a private party or a municipality, the result is the same: the owner’s property interest in the surplus is forfeited. Applying the logic of Tyler, a court might deem unconstitutional any system that requires property owners to forfeit the surplus without allowing them an opportunity to request a refund.

Check it out in the Colorado Lawyer (Jan-Feb 2024): Keeping the Surplus? …

Continue Reading New Article: “Keeping the Surplus? Examining Colorado’s Real Property Tax Lien System in Light of Tyler v. Hennepin County” (Makenna Johnson)

Sheetz

Get ready for Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, the “legislative exactions” case at the Supreme Court. [Disclosure: this is one of our firm’s cases, so we won’t be doing an analysis here. Besides, you already know where we stand on the issue.]

With the final merits brief filed last week (Petitioner’s Reply), the case is now teed up for argument next week. Wow, that seemed to come at us very quickly.

Screenshot 2024-01-01 at 15-41-45 Search - Supreme Court of the United States

Here’s the Question Presented:

George Sheetz applied, to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination…

Continue Reading Sheetz v. El Dorado County Argument Preview: Do Blanket Exactions Present The Same Risk As Ad Hoc Exactions?

HAWSCT

We’re not going to go into very much detail or provide commentary on the Hawaii Supreme Court’s unanimous 88-page opinion in an eminent domain case we’ve been following, City and County of Honolulu v. Victoria Ward, Ltd., No. SCAP-22-0000335 (Dec. 29, 2023), because before we departed private practice for public interest law a couple of years ago, this was our client and our case (so we still have a bias).

Update: more on the decision from Jesse Souki, “Hawai’i Court Holds that Consideration of Severance Damages in Honolulu Rail Case Should be Left to the Jury” (“The HSCT was critical of the circuit court’s granting of summary judgment motions where there were genuine issues of material fact that should be decided by the jury[.]”).

Short story: the Honolulu rail agency (we’re still calling it “HART” and not the weird “Skyline” although the latter is…

Continue Reading Hawaii SCT: Most Of Those Eminent Domain Issues (Esp. Severance Damages) Are For Juries

Here are the cases that Michael Berger and I discussed in today’s presentation to the ABA State and Local Government Law Section’s Land Use group. It was good seeing everyone, even virtually:

…
Continue Reading Cases And Links From Today’s ABA State & Local Govt Law Land Use Presentation

Here’s the latest in a case we’ve been following.

In this Order, the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii made permanent its earlier ruling that Honolulu’s ordinance which expanded the minimum rental term to 90 days because it did not account for those owners who were already legally renting their properties for 30 days. The state Zoning Enabling Act requires zoning ordinances account for preexisting uses.

We covered the issues and the court’s preliminary injunction ruling here, and won’t go over those again. About the only difference between that one and this one is that the court rejects the City’s “several new legal arguments[,]” including Pullman abstention, and the claim that this isn’t a zoning ordinance covered by the ZEA, but rather a “rental regulation.” See slip op. at 10.

The City’s attempt to reframe the issue first presented during preliminary injunction proceedings more than a…

Continue Reading Hawaii Federal Court: Honolulu Can’t Increase Minimum Rental Term To 90 Days Without Accommodating Existing Uses

PXL_20230223_024826759

Starting in January, we’ll be helping our friend and former law partner Mark M. Murakami with the venerated and oh-so-important Land Use course (Law 580) at the University of Hawaii’s Law School.

We’re temporarily stepping into some mighty big slippers (this is Hawaii, so we don’t always wear shoes), as this is the course that our mentor Professor David Callies taught for decades. And is there a better venue in which to teach and study land use law and regulation, and its limits? After all, Hawaii may be the most heavily-regulated land on the planet, and is a focal point for every issue you can think of, from zoning to environmental restrictions to takings to public trust to subdivision to admin law to … well, you get the drift.

We’ll cover those topics, as well as the fundamentals. And we have a few surprises up our sleeves — some impressive…

Continue Reading Hawaii Five-80: More Land Use (Law 580) At The University Of Hawaii

You remember that longstanding trope: that matters of land use are “local” issues, and thus in civil rights claims involving a state or local government interfering with the right of property federal courts should avoid adjudication until the government has had every chance to do the right thing (even where it is patently obvious that it has no intention of doing so)? This trope most often shows up as a part of a ripeness dismissal, where the court says “too soon,” because, well, if given enough time and opportunity, the government might render adjudication unnecessary.

Well, in Ateres Bais Yaakov Academy of Rockland v. Town of Clarkstown, No. 22-1741 (Dec. 8, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held a land use case ripe, and in the process blew up this overripe trope. Whoa!

But before you takings mavens get too excited, this is a RLUIPA…

Continue Reading “Super-Zoning Board” No More – CA2 Busts The “Land Use Is Local” Trope: Town ZBA Doing Nothing On Variance Application Ripened Constitutional Claim