Municipal & Local Govt law

Subscribe to Municipal & Local Govt law via RSS

Every now and then, there’s a cert petition which those who generally support the petitioner’s side of the equation secretly hope is not granted, and breathe a sigh of relief when the Court denies review. Today, we’re sure that those on the regulatory side of the table are doing just that, because the Court declined to review the Third Circuit’s decision in R&J Holding Co. v. Redevelopment Authority of Montgomery County, 670 F.3d 420 (3d Cir. Dec. 9, 2011), a case we detailed here.

In that case, the Third Circuit held that a property owner did not litigate its federal takings claims in an earlier state court case, and thus actually allowed a property owner to raise its federal constitutional claims in federal court. In its cert petition, the redevelopment agency claimed that the Third Circuit’s application of Pennsylvania preclusion law created an “unfair procedural trap” for…

Continue Reading Cert Denied In Williamson County Case

Recently, in Intellectual Laziness on the Supreme Court, a short essay about the Supreme Court’s recent Equal Protection decision about unequal property assessments, Professor Richard Epstein wrote, “[i]t’s time to scrap the irrational ‘rational basis test.'” Decisions like the Ninth Circuit’s recent opinion in Samson v. City of Bainbridge Island, No. 10-35352 (9th Cir. June 15, 2012) make you think he’s onto something.

We were about to do a detailed post about the case, when our partner Mark Murakami beat us to it, so we won’t repeat the facts or the panel’s analysis (more accurately, lack of analysis, given the application of the “rational basis” test) here. Instead, we offer these thoughts:

  • A property owner can win in state court, and obtain a ruling that a temporary building moratorium is unconstitutional, but a permanent prohibition is not? That’s because the ruling was one of Washington state

…
Continue Reading 9th Circuit Weeps For Property Owners Subject To “Long Odyssey,” But Still Rules Against Them

The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals issued an opinion yesterday in Pavsek v. Sandvold, No. 29179 (June 13, 2012), holding that a person complaining about a vacation rental cannot circumvent the City’s enforcement procedures and the administrative appeal process by instituting an original jurisdiction lawsuit claiming that a homeowner is renting her property in violation of the City’s prohibition on rentals of less than thirty days:

We hold that: (1) HRS § 46-4(a) does create a private right of action in favor of a real estate owner directly affected by an alleged LUO [Land Use Ordinance] zoning violation, but that the owner’s action is subject to the doctrine of primary jurisdiction; (2) under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, the Pavseks are required to seek an administrative determination of their claim that their neighbors have been violating the LUO before proceeding with their suit to obtain judicial enforcement of the…

Continue Reading HAWICA: Must Pursue Administrative Process To Object To Vacation Rentals

Last week, we were on the Rick Hamada program on KHVH-AM, summing up the recent Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in Kaleikini v. Yoshioka, No. SCAP-11-0000611, the appeal asking whether archaeological review must be completed for the entire 20-mile length of the Honolulu rail project, or whether it can be done on a “phased” or segment-by-segment basis. (A preview and briefs are posted here.)

Here’s a “video” (no picture, this is radio).Continue Reading More Thoughts On Honolulu Rail And The Sufficiency Of Archaeological Review

Here is the final brief (Petitioner’s response to the SG’s inviation amicus) in Corboy v. Louie, No. 11-336 (cert. petition filed Sep. 15, 2011), the case asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the property tax exemptions conferred on lessees of Hawaiian Homesteads. The petitioners claim this is an unconstitutional race-based classification, but the Hawaii Supreme Court dismissed for lack of standing (the petitioners had not applied for a Hawaiian Homestead lease).

The case was originally scheduled for the Court’s conference on December 12, 2011, but the Court postponed consideration of the case and invited the Obama Administration to weigh in with a brief, because the petition draws into question the constitutionality of the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act and the constitutionality of a part of the Hawaii Admission Act. The SG’s brief asserted that the Hawaii Supreme Court decided…

Continue Reading Final Brief In Case Challenging Hawaiian Homes Property Tax Exemption As Racial Discrimination: SG’s Assertion That HAWSCT Decision Was One Of State Law “Dead Wrong.”

Here’s more on Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161 (June 4, 2012), the case in which a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court held that the City’s decision to forgive the balance owing for homeowners who had not fully paid the sewer assessement, while not issuing refunds to their neighbors who had already paid in full.

The last article got us to thinking: if the primary reason that the Court held that the refusal to provide refunds was not irrational was that it was too much administrative hassle to cut the checks, doesn’t that mean the tail is wagging the dog? Aren’t the…

Continue Reading More On SCOTUS’s Property Tax (In)equality Case

This just in: the Ninth Circuit has issued an opinion in Kaahumanu v. State of Hawaii Dep’t of Land and Natural Resources, No. 10-15645 (June 6, 2012), the case challenging the State’s regulation of commercial weddings on state beaches under the First Amendment. The court mostly upheld the regulations, but struck down the power of government officials to revoke a permit and modify it.

More, after a chance to digest the opinion.

Kaahumanu v. Dep’t of Land and Natural Resources, No. 10-15645 (9th Cir June 6, 2012)Continue Reading 9th Circuit: Hawaii’s Regulation Of Commercial Beach Weddings Does Not Violate First Amendment, Except…

That’s the essence of today’s opinion in Armour v. City of Indianapolis, No. 11-161 (June 4, 2012), in which a 6-3 majority upheld the City’s decision to forgive the balance owing for homeowners who had not fully paid the assessement, while not issuing refunds to their neighbors who had already paid in full.

The majority held that the City had a “rational basis” in effect to charge Homeowner A nearly 30 times as much for the same service as Homeowner B because it would be too much “administrative hassle” (to quote CJ Roberts’ dissent) to process refunds to those who had fully paid the assessment. Since no suspect classification was involved, the City’s actions are reviewed only for minimum rationality. Which, as we know, means “any excuse.”

For many years, an Indiana statute, the “Barrett Law,” authorized Indiana’s cities to impose upon benefited lot owners the cost of sewer…

Continue Reading SCOTUS: Property Owners Who Paid Sewer Assessements In Full Are Fools

It’s a frequent question: does appellate oral argument really matter?

We’ve always harbored the belief that it does in some cases, and if you have any doubts, look no further than today’s Ninth Circuit opinion in Nordyke v. King, No. 07-15763 (June 1, 2012), where the en banc court essentially concluded that the issue (whether a county ordinance that makes it a crime to possess a firearm at the County Fairgrounds violates the Second Amendment rights of gun show exhibitors) was moot because the county’s attorney at oral argument informed the court that the county now interpreted the ordinance to prohibit only “actual possession” of a gun, and not to bar display of a “properly secured firearm,” and that subject to this limitation, gun shows can take place at the fairgrounds. Under that interpretation, the ordinance does not ban guns and is only a reasonable regulation.

Three judges…

Continue Reading Does Appellate Oral Argument Matter? You Bet

The federal government has filed its invitation brief in Corboy v. Louie, No. 11-336 (cert. petition filed Sep. 15, 2011), the cert petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the Hawaii Supreme Court’s dismissal of a challenge to the property tax exemptons conferred on lessees of Hawaiian Homesteads.

Only “native Hawaiians” are eligible to lease homestead land, and thus only those possessing the appropriate blood quantum are entitled to the tax exemptions. The petitioners are not “native Hawaiians” and thus are not lessees, and paid their property taxes under protest. When they sought refunds in the Hawaii Tax Appeals Court and argued that they should also be exempt, that court concluded that “native Hawaiian” was not a racial classification and did not review the tax exemption with strict scrutiny. Instead, the court upheld the exemption under rational basis review. The Hawaii Supreme Court vacated the Tax Court decision…

Continue Reading Obama Administration’s Amicus Brief: Deny Cert To Case Challenging Property Tax Exemptions For Hawaiian Homestead Lessees