They’re going back, to reargue the case with a full contingent of justices. In the January oral argument calendar published yesterday, the Supreme Court gave us the date and time:
Wednesday, January 16, 2019, at 10:00 a.m.
We will be there, and will bring you our thoughts.
Get ready. In this and upcoming posts, we’re going to be featuring the items on our agenda for the upcoming ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference, January 24-26, 2019, in sunny Palm Springs, California.
ALI-CLE has released the brochure, which those of you on the mailing list should have received — or will be receiving — in your brick-and-mortar inboxes. If not, download it here. Looking it over, you will see that we have assembled a great faculty with expertise in the range of issues that are driving our branch of the law, locally and nationally.
And, as always, one of the best aspects of this conference is the collegiality. Our attendees and faculty find that one of the most beneficial parts of the conference is to meet your colleagues from across the country, and talk shop about the issues we love.
Of course we
Continue Reading ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation Palm Springs Brochure Is Out
Retroactive continuity — or “retconning” — is, according to that authoritative source Wikipedia, a “literary device in which established facts in a fictional work are adjusted, ignored, or contradicted by a subsequently published work which breaks continuity.”
For example, compare the real-world explanation for why the 1960’s Star Trek show’s Klingons didn’t have butt heads, but the later-produced shows and movies did. The real-world reason was that the TV show had a bare-bones budget, so couldn’t afford the required intricate make-up. The later-produced stuff, having larger budgets, could. But to those concerned with an in-universe explanation that had to line up with the production realities, it turned out to be a big source of contention. Fandom as well as the later shows’ writers struggled to come up with a narrative that accounted for both Klingons with butt heads, and those without.
Sorry for the impossibly nerdy
Continue Reading Knick And Klingon Foreheads: Retconning Williamson County
Every year, at the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference, the conference publishes a law journal with the articles, essays, and remarks presented at last year’s conference. So it was this year, and Volume 7, with the theme of “The Future of Regulatory Takings,” is now available.
We contributed an essay, “Back to the Future of Land Use Regulation,” which focuses on the rational basis test in land use law — where it came from and where it might be going — as well as some other current issues in property law such as the recent trend of raising general environmental concerns as property claims. Check it out if you are so inclined.
Here’s the Introduction:
As always, I bring you greetings from the land of Midkiff, the land of Kaiser Aetna. The jurisdiction in which the legislature thought it was a good idea to try and
Would you pay, say $10 for an undeveloped Maui beachfront parcel that is zoned for hotel and residential purposes, but currently is not developable because the County in the past wanted to condemn the land and turn it into a public park (but then ran out of money)?
In furtherance of its acquisition plan, the County changed the parcel’s Community Plan (known as a “general plan” in most jurisdictions) designation to “park.” But it never amended the Hotel zoning, which allows lesser intensive uses such as single-family homes. But then the County didn’t have enough money — beachfront property, it turns out, was (and is) a lot more spendy than the government appraisers thought — so it never actually acquired the land. But having downplanned the parcel in order to take it, it never bothered uplanning it when it couldn’t: the County never reverted the CP designation to its former
From Reno, Nevada colleague Steve Silva, comes this contribution to our growing collection of Knick/Williamson County-related memes.
Congratulations if you get this without having to do research. If so, you are a True Takings Nerd (and a nerd generally).
For those of you who are not quite getting it, here is the breakdown:
Last week, the 15th Annual Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference saw the gathering of legal scholars, judges, lawyers, and law students at the William and Mary Law School to award the B-K Property Rights Prize to Cardozo lawprof Stewart Sterk, followed by a day-long conference focusing on Professor Sterk’s work and the latest developments in property rights law.
Professor Sterk joins the pantheon of property law scholars (and a judge and a practitioner) who have been awarded the Prize. Pretty impressive:
As always, the program starts off with a candlelight dinner and award presentation in the historic Wren Building, definitely a highlight of the Conference. More about the Conference here.
And there’s nothing like spending the following day addressing some of the most pressing issues in our area, along with the brightest minds in the business (below is the final panel of the day, with Professor John Echeverria
Continue Reading 2018 Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference Report: Emerging Issues
Just out of the Knick arguments. Full report to come later. But for now, these thoughts:
College of Surgeons – D.O.A. I think there’s a consensus to overrule the case to the extent it allows municipalities to remove takings cases to federal court.
San Remo – On life support. I think also that there may be enough votes to overrule the Catch-22 aspects of that case and the preclusion/full faith and credit trap.
Here’s the federal government’s position, in a nutshell:
Justice Kagan, like us, found that distinction hard to swallow.
Justice Bryer quote of the day: “why not let sleeping dogs lie?” (Asking about stare decisis.)
As for the “big” issue of whether the Court will overrule Williamson County? Too close to call. We didn’t see an obvious majority forming around anything but overruling Chicago and San Remo. No Justice seemed to like Williamson County too much (except
Continue Reading Meanwhile Back At 1 First Street … Hot Take On The Knick Arguments
Our colleague and co-planning chair Joe Waldo was in town yesterday, so we walked through historic Williamsburg, Virginia (cradle of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights), to invite you to join us for the 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference (January 24-26, 2019, in Palm Springs, California).
Register now here. Early registration and group discounts available. The 2018 Conference in Charleston sold out, so be sure to sign up now so you don’t miss out. Continue Reading Join Us For The 36th Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference In Palm Springs (Jan 24-26, 2019)
One more lesson on the speed of the interwebs: we were all set to take a deep dive into the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in an inverse condemnation case, Bottini v. City of San Diego, No. D071670 (Sep. 18, 2018), when our colleague Brad Kuhn analyzed the case at his California Eminent Domain Report blog.
The title of Brad’s post, “Improper CEQA Determination Does Not Trigger Regulatory Taking,” tells you most of what you need to know. The short story is that the City asserted that Bottini’s planned demolition of a beach bungalow as part of a project to build a new house required assessment and analysis under California’s environmental reporting statute, CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act). Bottini disagreed, asserting the demolition was exempt from CEQA, and, by the way, the delay caused by the City’s wrongful assertion of CEQA authority was a temporary taking.
