Nollan/Dolan | Exactions

Subscribe to Nollan/Dolan | Exactions via RSS

Here’s the Answer Brief on the Merits, filed last week in the California Supreme Court in City of Perris v. Stamper.

That’s the case in which the court is considering whether, in the context of determining just compensation, the judge or the jury gets to decide whether a city’s exaction is something that is so reasonably likely to happen that it can be taken into account. That, of course, raises the Nollan/Dolan issue, and although this seems like a question of law, the California Court of Appeal concluded that, on the whole, the jury gets this one. We reported on the Court of Appeal decision here.

This brief responds to the Opening Brief, filed last month by the City (and posted here), which argues that the issue is one reserved solely to judges.  The Answer Brief makes two points:

  • The court can solve this case

…
Continue Reading Answering Brief In Stamper: Jury Decides Nollan/Dolan When A Factor In Compensation

Here’s the Opening Brief on the Merits, filed last month in a very interesting and important case now pending in the California Supreme Court, City of Perris v. Stamper. 

Update: Answering Brief posted here. 

We reported on the Court of Appeal decision here. The court held that that in a condemnation action, the jury gets to determine the reasonable probability that the City would successfully assert that its dedication of property requirement would mean that the property taken could be acquired essentially for free. The court concluded that even though Nollan/Dolan issues are involved, the jury determines this issue because “issues surrounding the dedication requirement are essential to the determination of ‘just compensation’ and therefore must be “ascertained by a jury.'” 

The city condemned a portion of Stamper’s industrially-zoned vacant land in order to realign and widen an adjacent road. Its deposit was based on the use of…

Continue Reading Cal S. Ct. Brief: In Determining Compensation, Judge, Not Jury, Determines Reasonable Probability Of Nollan/Dolan Exaction

Coy Koontz, Jr., the prevailing property owner in Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District, No. 11-1147 (June 25, 2013) joined our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Jim Burling for an interview on Fox and Friends.

Kudos to Jim and Mr. Koontz for getting down to the studio in the wee hours of the morning — we shared dinner last night (Mr. Koontz has joined us to accept the 2014 Crystal Eagle award from Owners’ Counsel of America on Saturday), and even after all that a New Orleans meal involves, they were able to drag themselves to the studio and look remarkably fresh. Good work, guys.Continue Reading Coy Koontz, Prevailing Property Owner In SCOTUS Victory, Interviewed

Next week, we’ll be in New Orleans for the 2014 edition of the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain program, now in its 31st year. 

As usual, my Owners’ Counsel colleagues Leslie Fields and Joe Waldo (the programming co-chairs) have put together a fantastic 2.5 day of programming, taught by expert faculty.  At 11:00 a.m. on the first day of the program, I will be joining Professor James Ely to speak about “The Full and Perfect Equivalent for Just Compensation: The Historical Context and Practice.” 

Should be fun. If you are not joining us in-person, ALI-CLE is producing it as a live webcast, and will make the coursebook and video and audio available for later listening or viewing. 

More details here, or download the brochure here, or below. 

31st Annual Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, ALI-CLE Program (CV023) (Jan. 23-25, 2014) New Or…

Continue Reading 31st Annual ALI-CLE Eminent Domain And Land Valuation Litigation (New Orleans)

In Powell v. County of Humboldt, No. A137238 (Jan. 16, 2014), the California Court of Appeal held the County’s demand that landowners who sought an after-the-fact building permit for a carport and porch for their mobile home dedicate an overflight easement for the nearby Eureka airport did not run afoul of Nollan–Dolan–Koontz. 

The court concluded that the overflight easement did not consitute a per se physical taking of the Powell’s property, and thus they did not meet that part of the NDK standard which prohibits the conditioning of a permit on the surrender of the right to compensation for a taking. Here, the court held, the Powells did not show that the easement was a taking. See slip op. at 15. Although property owners generally have airspace rights, there is no right to exclude aircraft from the “navigable airspace above their property in accordance…

Continue Reading Cal App: County Can Condition Building Permit On Landowner Allowing Aircraft Overflight Easement

Cover_42_3_ The Urban Lawyer, the law review produced by the ABA Section of State & Local Goverment Law has published my article Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings, 45 Urban Lawyer 769 (2013).

Here’s the Introduction to the article:

THE SUPREME COURT’S 2012 TERM promised to be a banner year in regulatory takings law, with no less than three cases on the Court’s docket. In Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. United States, a case involving a takings claim against the federal government for compensation resulting from a flood, the Court held that flooding need not be “permanent” in order to result in liability, and reinforced the principle that categorical takings are not favored, and stated that the default analysis is the multi-factored Penn Central test. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Court held that monetary development exactions fall within the reach of the…

Continue Reading New Article: Recent Developments in Regulatory Takings

Last we checked in, the California Supreme Court had agreed to review the Court of Appeal’s decision in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose (6th District June 6, 2013), which held that under rational basis review (and not heightend scrutiny) the city of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” ordinance might survive challenge because it was designed to promote the development of affordable housing, and not to mitigate the impacts of market priced housing.

Yesterday, the CBIA filed its Opening Brief in the appeal, which presents a single Question Presented:

Must inclusionary housing ordinances which exact property interests or in-lieu development fees as a condition of development permit approval be reasonably related to the deleterious impact of the development on which they are imposed, as set forth in San Remo Hotel L.P. v. City & County of San Francisco, 27 Cal. 4th 643, 670 (2002)?

The brief answers …

Continue Reading Opening Brief In Cal Supreme Court “Inclusionary Housing” Exactions Case

A must read from our colleague Professor Steven Eagle (author of the Regulatory Takings treatise) about the Koontz case, Koontz in the Mansion and the Gatehouse, forthcoming in the Urban Lawyer.

Here’s the abstract:

This Article focuses on problems in implementing the U.S. Supreme Court’s expansion of its doctrine of unconstitutional conditions pertaining to land development approvals in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. As earlier developed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, the doctrine applied only to unrelated or disproportional exactions of interests in real property. The doctrine was expanded in Koontz to include denials of development approval after landowner refusal to accede to unreasonable exaction demands, and also to exactions of money as well as real property interests.

Drawing an analogy to Yale Kamisar’s disparate treatment of criminal defendants in the “mansion” of the judicial system and the “gatehouse”…

Continue Reading New Article: “Koontz in the Mansion and the Gatehouse” (Professor Steven Eagle)

Worth reading: a new working paper on exactions and Koontz by a Pacific Legal Foundtion Fellow (PLF represented the prevailing property owner in Koontz).

The article, “Nollan and Dolan and Koontz – Oh My! The Exactions Trilogy Requires Developers to Cover the Full Social Costs of Their Projects, But No More,” by Christina Martin,

argues that, contrary to appalled assertions of some observers, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District is a straightforward application of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard. Nollan and Dolan established that when government requires a permit applicant to give up property in exchange for a permit, the demand must be closely related and roughly proportional to the development’s social cost. Anything that exceeds those bounds violates the unconstitutional conditions doctrine by burdening the right to just compensation for a taking. Koontz…

Continue Reading New Article On Nollan-Dolan-Koontz

Before we get to the California Supreme Court’s opinion in Sterling Park, L.P. v. City of Palo Alto, No. 204771 (Oct, 17, 2013), here’s what we think is the money quote:

For these reasons, we believe Fogarty and Williams correctly interpreted [Cal. Cov’t Code] section 66020. The statute governs conditions on development a local agency imposes that divest the developer of money or a possessory interest in property, but not restrictions on the manner in which a developer may use its property. [Cal. Gov. Code] Section 66499.37 governs the latter restrictions.

Slip op. at 17.

The court backed into defining “exaction,” since the case involved the choice of which statute of limitations applied to the plaintiff’s challenge to the city’s requirement that developers who want to build (in this case, a 96 unit condominium project) must either set aside a certain percentage of units for sale…

Continue Reading Cal Supremes: “Exaction” Includes Demand For Land Or Money