Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

Today, on behalf of our colleagues at Owners’ Counsel of America, we filed this amicus brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). That’s the case asking whether the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” standards of Nollan and Dolan are applicable only to exactions for land, or whether they are generally-applicable tests.

Our brief argues:

It is no great stretch to apply the nexus and proportionality standards to all exactions, and not just those demanding land. Like land, money is property, and should be subject to the same rules. Requiring compliance with Nollan and Dolan when government seeks money or other property in exchange for discretionary permits will not impose a significant burden on land planners, other than the requirement that they, like other officials, follow the Constitution. If the constable must understand the limitations the Constitution places on…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief: Exaction Not Subject To Lesser Standards Because Taking Measured In Dollars And Not Square Feet

Here’s a short one from the Ohio Supreme Court. In City of Girard v. Youngstown Belt Railway Co., No. 2012 Ohio 5370 (Nov. 21, 2012), the court held:

In this case, we are called upon to determine the extent to which the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act (“ICCTA”), 49 U.S.C. 10101 et seq., preempts a state’s eminent-domain action over a parcel of property owned by a railway company. Based on our interpretation of the legislation at issue and its application to the unique facts of this case, we find no preemption, and we therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Slip op. at 1-2. Not really an eminent domain heavy issue, and if federal preemption is your thing, check it out. More here from the local newspaper.

City of Girard v. Youngstown Belt Railway Co., No 2012 Ohio 5370 (Nov. 21, 2012)Continue Reading Ohio: Federal Law Does Not Preempt City’s Condemnation

Check out this story, Excelaron filed $6.24 billion lawsuit against SLO county, and the filing below.

$6.24 billion? According to the story, “[c]ounty Supervisor Adam Hill said the amount being sought makes this one of the largest, if not the largest lawsuit in San Luis Obispo County’s history.” 

We’d certainly hope so.

ead more here: http://www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/11/21/2303534/excelaron-lawsuit-huasna-valley.html#storylink=cpy

Petition for Writ of Mandate; Complaint, Excelaron, LLC v. County of San Luis Obispo, No. CV 120675 (Nov. 19, 2012)Continue Reading Wow, That’s A Lot Of Just Compensation

Here’s the property owner’s merits brief in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012). 

This case presents two questions:

  • Whether the government violates the Takings Clause when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan?
  • Whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use.

The amicus briefs in support of the property owner are due next week. We’ll post those when available.

Petitioner’s Brief on the Merits, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt …

Continue Reading Petitioner’s Brief In Koontz: No Bargaining Around The Takings Clause

Anyone who practices land use law is familiar with the primary jurisdiction and exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrines. These rules require courts to either dismiss claims or abstain from exercising jurisdiction unless and until an administrative agency has first developed the record and passed on the issues. If you’ve got notice of the action you claim is wrong, you must challenge that decision and seek a contested case in the agency’s review process as a prerequisite to obtaining judicial review.

The latest case from the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, Dancil v. Arakawa, No. CAAP-11-001029 (Nov. 16, 2012), presents these issues in a familiar context: the County of Maui approved a coastal zone permit allowing a Halloween party to go forward in Lahaina, and someone was against it. After the County issued the permit, the objector did not appeal that decision up through the County’s administrative appeals process within…

Continue Reading HAWICA: Third-Party Objector Must Seek Administrative Relief To Challenge Halloween Party

Believing that discretion was the better part of valor, we didn’t think there would be a challenge to the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ opinion in Leone v. County of Maui, No 29692 (June 22, 2012). But we were wrong, and the County of Maui is going all in. 

Update Dec. 12, 2012: cert rejected.

The County has filed a cert application (remember, under Hawaii appellate procedure we don’t “petition” for cert, we “apply”) arguing that a property owner faced with the County’s refusal to even process its request for a use permitted by zoning has an obligation to appeal that refusal up the County’s administrative chain. The reason for the refusal to even consider the request was that the proposed use, while permissible as of right under applicable zoning, was inconsistent with the Community Plan designation (the same as General Plans in most other places), so the…

Continue Reading New HAWSCT Cert App: Williamson County Ripeness Requires Property Owner Change The Law

13.LULHIIt’s back! Time once again for the bi-annual Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, to be held January 17 and 18, 2013 (Thursday and Friday) at the Downtown YWCA (a very convenient venue).

Planning co-chairs Professor David Callies and Ben Kudo have once again assembled a stellar faculty and put together an agenda that covers most topics of interest.

We’ll be moderating a panel on “Development Through Exemptions – The Evolution of Reclassifications, Permitting, Land Use &Development in Hawaii: The Unintended Consequences ofan Increasingly Complex System of Regulations,” featuring panelists Linda L.W. Chow (Deputy Attorney General State of Hawaii), Oswald K. Stender (Office of Hawaiian Affairs), and Kali Watson (Hawaiian Community Development).

Two highlights of the conference:

First, Mike Berger will give the keynote presentation on our favorite topic, regulatory takings: “Taking a Critical Look at 30 Years of the Supreme Court’s Taking Jurisprudence.” Mike has taken the lead in…

Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: 10th Hawaii Land Use Law Conference (Jan. 17-18, 2013)

The three-part Penn Central test for an ad hoc regulatory taking tasks courts with evaluation of the economic impact of the regulation on the property’s use, the property owner’s distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Throw all of these “factors” into a pot, stir, and voila, the answer of whether the regulation goes “too far” is supposed to emerge. But try as they might, many courts don’t really have a good idea of how to apply this test, even though in Lingle, the Supreme Court affirmed that it remains the “default” analysis to evaluate most takings claims.

The latest regulatory takings opinion from the Ninth Circuit, Laurel Park Community, LLC v. City of Tumwater, No. 11-35466 (Oct. 29, 2012) is another example of a court applying the test, in this case to evaluate property owners’ claims that the enactment of a new zoning…

Continue Reading 9th Cir: No Facial Penn Central Taking In Ordinance Creating Mobile Home Zoning

If you need another reminder of what land use and zoning law looks like on Kauai in practice (and, in turn, in Hawaii generally), see this article, Hanalei vs. Hanalei in The Garden Island newspaper. It’s about a proposal to develop a new resort that (not surprisingly) is “meeting staunch opposition from a rapidly growing group of people.”

The developer side has its own view, touting the proposed resort as “the most environmentally and culturally responsible visitor-oriented project ever to be proposed in the state.” The story reports that one of the project’s backers is “billionaire and eBay founder Pierre Omidyar,” so that could make this a very interesting development instead of the usual enviros vs developer scenario, since Omidyar, according to at least one of the project’s opponents “has the right mind,” and “right heart” to donate at least part of the land to preserve a viewplane.

The…

Continue Reading A Microcosm Of Hawaii Land Use Law