We recently asked “Is Kelo A Conservative Issue?,” and the the Ricochet blog asked the related question “Is Eminent Domain a Civil Rights Issue?.”
In that vein, check out the above video from Reason about one case where “redevelopment” certainly seems to have raised civil rights concerns. Continue Reading Is Eminent Domain A “Civil Rights” Issue?
It can be difficult to piece together the full scope of the issues and arguments in an appeal from the oral arguments alone. Most often, arguments cover narrow issues of concern to the judges, and the advocates do not have the opportunity to cover every argument in the time allotted (that’s what the briefs are for). And although oral arguments in the Hawaii Supreme Court and the Intermediate Court of Appeals are usually scheduled at 30 minutes per side which allows for a wider range of issues and a more in-depth discussion, the briefs are the best guide for what the arguments are.
With that prologue, we wanted to focus your attention on an appeal that was argued last week in the ICA, Goo v. Tavares, No. 30142. The case involves a multitude of land use-related issues, including how “height” is measured, vested rights and estoppel, and the private
Continue Reading HAWICA Oral Arguments In Appeal About From Where “Height” Is Measured
The Fall edition of State & Local Law News features my article on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Carrigan and Guarnieri. From the Introduction:
The U.S. Supreme Court decided two First Amendment cases this Term of special interest to attorneys practicing state and local government law. In Nevada Comm’n on Ethics v. Carrigan, the Court concluded Nevada’s Ethics in Government Law, which requires elected and appointed government officials to recuse themselves from voting when they might have a conflict of interest, does not violate an official’s right to vote. By upholding Nevada’s ethics laws, the Court allowed state and local governments to continue to regulate the conflicts of interests of elected and appointed government officials and other government employees. In Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri, the Court applied the long-standing balancing test applicable to government employee speech to government employee union grievances and held that
In a cert petition filed yesterday, five Hawaii taxpayers argue that they have standing to challenge the constitutionality of property tax exemptions 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 and dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, holding the petitioners lacked standing to challenge the exemption since they had not sought homestead
The Governor has filed his Answer to the Star-Advertiser‘s complaint in the case in which the Star-Advertiser is asking the circuit court to order the Governor to release to the public the list of judicial nominees presented to him by the Judicial Selection Commission, now that the Hawaii Senate has consented to the Governor’s appointment of Justice McKenna. The Governor refused the Star-Advertiser‘s multiple requests, notwithstanding the Office of Information Practices’ opinion that the list must be disclosed because any justification for withholding “would end once a nominee is confirmed by the Senate.”
Read the story in the Star-Advertiser here.
Disclosure: we represent the Star-Advertiser in this case.
Answer, Star-Advertiser v Abercrombie (filed Sep 12 2011)Continue Reading Governor’s Answer In JSC List Case
No, it’s not a takings claim, so Williamson County ripeness isn’t a part of the opinion. In Potrero Hills Landfill, Inc. v. County of Solano, No. 10-15229 (Sep. 13, 2011), the Ninth Circuit held that the Younger abstention doctrine did not prevent the district court from considering a § 1983 claim for declaratory and injunctive relief in a land use case involving an initiative ordinance that regulated the amount of solid waste that could be imported into the county.
After the county concluded the ordinance was unconstitutional under the dormant Commerce Clause and refused to enforce it, one of the county landfills began to reach its limits and its owner sought an expansion permit. Environmental groups eventually brought suit in state court to require the county to enforce the ordinance. Shortly thereafter, the landfill and other waste and recycling businesses filed a federal court action to invalidate the ordinance
Continue Reading 9th Cir: Federal Court May Consider A Land Use Civil Rights Claim
“This is not what we normally do. We do land use, real estate, development law. Heck, I can get you zoning to be an airport if that’s what you want. But I don’t represent inmates, I don’t represent people charged with crime, I don’t represent criminals.”
— Land use lawyer Joshua Safran
“Crime” and “land use lawyers” are phrases not usually heard together; in most cases, the worlds of criminal law and land use never intersect, and lawyers for developers and property owners don’t have much occasion to visit the “Attorney’s Room” at the state pen. But in the documentary film Crime After Crime, two land use lawyers including our ABA State & Local Government Law Section colleague Nadia Costa (Vice-Chair of the Section’s Land Use Committee), plunge into that unfamiliar milieu:
In 1983, Deborah Peagler, a woman brutally abused by her boyfriend, was
For anyone who deals with state, municipal, and local government law, here’s a must-follow blog: The Municipal Minute, produced by our ABA State & Local Government Law Section colleague (and fellow U. Hawaii Law alum) Julie A. Tappendorf. Julie is a partner in the Chicago office Ancel Glink, and practices local government, land use, economic development, and zoning litigation, and is a frequent author and speaker.
Posts to date include “Hiring Experts in Land Use Cases,” “Tweeting into Trouble” (the upsides and downsides to social media use by local governments and officials), and “New Law Authorizes Zoning Hearing Procedural Rules.”
We’ve added it to our blogroll, and you should too. Continue Reading New Law Blog Worth Following: The Municipal Minute (Local Government Law)
“Property rights” often are portrayed as belonging only to the rich and powerful and protecting only the politically connected. But as we recently were reminded, this is a very inaccurate picture because property rights — as the “guardian of every other right” — form the foundation on which all other rights rest, and are “civil rights” that benefit everyone.
If we needed any more reminding, the U.S. Department of Justice recently filed a complaint in the Northern District of Ilinois against the City of Joliet under the Fair Housing Act after the City condemned an apartment complex in which 96% of the residents are African-American. The City claims it needed to take the property for “redevelopment” to alleviate blight. According to the DOJ’s press release:
The complaint, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, alleges that the city of Joliet
Continue Reading The “Bad Old Days” – Feds Sue City For Eminent Domain Abuse
Mark your calendars: as part of the Fall Meeting of the ABA’s Section of State & Local Government Law in Tucson, on Thursday, September 22, I’ll be on a panel discussing the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan, “Ethical Considerations for Municipal Attorneys: Caught in the Crosshairs Reconciling the Rules of Professional Conduct with Government Ethics Laws.” Here’s what we’ll be discussing:
This CLE is a panel discussion of the recent United States Supreme Court opinion Nevada Commission on Ethics v. Carrigan. At the heart of this case is how far a State may go in policing public officials who face a potential conflict of interest in conducting government business. The panel will discuss the case, the ruling, its ethical implications and questions still to be answered.
Joining me in the discussion will be Yvonne M. Nevarez-Goodson (Commission Counsel and one of
Continue Reading Seminar: Ethics, Government Conflicts Of Interest, And The First Amendment
