Nollan/Dolan | Exactions

Subscribe to Nollan/Dolan | Exactions via RSS

DHM_IMLA

A big thanks to my Owners Counsel of America and ABA State and Local Government Law Section colleague Dwight Merriam for emceeing today’s well-attended double session on land use and takings law at the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s 2013 annual meeting in San Francisco. Dwight and I were joined by land use expert Cecily Barclay, who presented sessions on Harvey Cedars, while I covered Koontz and Dwight did the relevant parcel/Lost Tree sessions. Continue Reading IMLA Conference Session On Koontz, Harvey Cedars, Relevant Parcel

IMLA
On Monday, September 30, 2013, we’ll be speaking along with Dwight Merriam and Cecily Barclay at the International Municipal Lawyers Association’s annual meeting in San Francisco, about three important cases/issues: Koontz, Harvey Cedars, and Lost Tree.

That’s a pretty wide range of cases, but we have some time and we’re sure we’ll have a good discussion. If you are attending the IMLA conference, please be sure to join us: 2:15 – 3:15pm, Hilton San Francisco Union Square (Plaza B, Lobby Level). Continue Reading Upcoming IMLA Panel On Koontz, Harvey Cedars, And Lost Tree

A link to a story worth reading about the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, No. 11-1147 (June 25, 2013).

In Developing Story at Florida Trend (“The Magazine of Florida Business”), our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Amy Brigham Boulris is quoted along with the property owner/petitioner Coy Koontz, and two lawprofs who don’t care for the decision.

Check it out, it’s a quick read. Continue Reading Worth Reading On Koontz: “A 20-year legal battle over a water management district’s condition for development is over – sort of.”

As we noted here, where we posted the petition for review, what might be the first major appellate decision following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz may be on the way.

Today, the California Supreme Court agreed to review (order here) 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 affordable housing exaction might survive because it was designed to promote the development of affordable housing, and not to mitigate the impacts of market priced housing.

This is not only a chance for the Cal Supreme Court to resolve the lower appellate court split on the issue, but whether, as the Petition‘s Question Presented argued, Koontz “governs the judicial review of in-lieu development fees in California. Koontz clarifies…

Continue Reading Cal S Ct To Review “Inclusionary Housing” Money Exaction – First Major Post-Koontz Decision On The Way?

Taking_coverimage_webIf you are anywhere within striking distance of Touro Law School (Central Islip, Long Island), you should make plans to attend a conference that promises two days of fantastic programming on October 3 and 4, 2013.

“The Taking Issue – 40th Anniversary Symposium” is dedicated to the memory of the legendary Professor Fred Bosselman, and lead author of The Taking Issue, a 1973 report to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. While the themes in the book have been overtaken by the Supreme Court’s takings cases, it remains a touchstone work for anyone interested in the subject.

Conference co-Chairs Dean Patricia Salkin and Professor David Callies (a co-author of The Taking Issue) have assembled an excellent faculty and agenda. There will be panels on partial takings, the Nollan/Dolan/Koontz issue, the relevant parcel question, and one on ripeness which we’ll be moderating…

Continue Reading Conference Announcement: The Taking Issue – 40th Anniversary Symposium

Please join us this upcoming Monday, August 19, 2013 from 1:00 – 2:30 p.m. Pacific Time for a telebriefing, “Regulatory Takings Claims in California – Implications of Recent Decisions and Advice for Practitioners and Government Agencies.”

Brad Kuhn (Nossaman, California Eminent Domain Report) is the program Chair and will serve as moderator, and Timothy Kassourni (Kassouni Law) will give us more details on his recent big win in a case under the Penn Central test. I’ll be talking Koontz and the Ninth Circuit’s latest foray into regulatory takings challenges to rent control.

It promises to be a fast-paced and informative hour, and there’s much here for the non-California practitioner. More information here (from Brad’s blog), and registration information is posted here. Continue Reading Telebriefing: Regulatory Takings Claims In California

Update: More thoughts from Rick Rayl and Brad Kuhn (California Eminent Domain Report) here.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here’s a decision at the intersection of eminent domain valuation and unconstitutional exactions from the California Court of Appeal (Fourth District). In City of Perris v. Stamper, No. E053395 (Aug. 9, 2013) the court held that in a condemnation action, “issues surrounding the dedication requirement are essential to the determination of ‘just compensation’ and therefore must be “ascertained by a jury.'” Slip op. at 1.

First, some background. 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 the land for agricultural purposes. But wait you say, the land was zoned industrial and even though it was vacant, when calculating compensaton, land is valued at its highest and best use. But get a load…

Continue Reading Cal App: Nollan/Dolan Issues Impacting Eminent Domain Valuation Are Decided By The Jury

Whoa, that was fast: in a case argued on August 2, 2013, and decided on August 9, 2013 (that’s one week from orals to opinion, folks), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Village of Maineville v. Salt Run, LLC, No. 12-4379 (Aug. 9, 2013), held that the property owner/plaintiff forfeited* its argument that a facial takings challenge to municipal impact fees is not subject to Williamson County‘s state procedures requirement because the argument was not raised in the District Court.

You know the drill: Williamson County tells us that a property owner cannot raise a federal takings claim in federal court unless it has first sought and been denied compensation via available state procedures. “And they agree that Salt Run has not invoked this procedure.” Slip op. at 5.

In the normal course, that would be the end of the case. Having failed to…

Continue Reading 6th Cir: Takings Plaintiff Forfeited Argument That Facial Challenges Not Subject To Williamson County’s State Procedures Requirement

Here’s what we’re reading today:

  • Our Owners’ Counsel colleague from New Jersey, Anthony Della Pelle, has posted some thoughts on the New Jersey Supreme Court’s recent decision in Borough of Harvey Cedars v. Karan, No. 070512 (July 8, 2013). That’s the case about valuation issues when there’s a partial taking of littoral property in order to erect protective dunes. Tony’s thoughts are well worth reading. 
  • In that vein, on Wednesday, August 14, 2013, starting at noon ET, we’ll be joining Tony and other experts to speak at the New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education’s teleseminar on “Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings:

…
Continue Reading Wednesday Round-Up: Koontz Recording, Jersey Shore Dunes, Plastic Bag Bans

Remember that decision by the California Court of Appeal which held that the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” exaction was subject only to low-level scrutiny and not the nexus-and-proportionality requirment?

Well, after Koontz, you should not be surprised that the decision has been taken to the next higher level and the California Building Industry Association has petitioned the California Supreme Court to review the case. The petition points out that the lower California courts have reached different conclusions when considering nearly identical ordinances (see here, for example):

Building Industry Association of Central California v. City of Patterson, 171 Cal. App. 4th 886, 898 (2009), holds that San Remo Hotel applies to inclusionary housing ordinances. The Opinion of the court below holds that San Remo Hotel does not apply to such ordinances. These two published decisions deal with materially identical inclusionary housing ordinances, and so cannot be…

Continue Reading First Post-Koontz Case: City’s “Inclusionary Housing” Exaction Challenged In California Supreme Court