Nollan/Dolan | Exactions

Subscribe to Nollan/Dolan | Exactions via RSS

Here’s one we’ve been meaning to post for a few days. In California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. H0338563 (June 6, 2013), the California Court of Appeal (6th District) held that the city’s affordable housing exaction might survive judicial scrutiny because it was designed to promote the development of affordable housing, and not to mitigate the impacts of developing market priced (“unaffordable?”) housing.

San Jose is one of the most expensive markets in the country, where homes don’t come cheap. The city’s “inclusionary housing” ordinance requires developers of residential projects of more than 20 units to set aside 15% for purchase at below-market rates by those earning no more than 110% of the area median income. Alternatively, a developer could either construct affordable housing on a different site, dedicate land, or pay an in lieu fee “not to exceed the difference between the median sale…

Continue Reading Cal App: “Inclusionary Housing” Money Exaction Might Just Survive Low-Level Scrutiny

Mark your calendars for July 12, 2013 for our CLE teleconference on “Supreme Court Takings: A First Look at Koontz and Horne,” sponsored by the ABA’s State and Local Government Law Section. We’ll start at 1:00 pm ET (Noon CT, 11:00 am MT, 10:00 am PT, 7:00 am HT). Here’s the program description:

In the 2012term, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments on two regulatory takings cases,Koontz v. St Johns River Water Management District, and Horne v. U.S.Department of Agriculture. Join our panel of legal scholars and expertpractitioners for the first analysis of these cases, and how the Court’srulings on land use exactions (Koontz), and jurisdiction (Horne) will impactyour practice.

We’ve assembled a great faculty with a mix of expert scholars and practitioners: Professor Michael McConnell (arguing counsel in Horne), Professor David Callies, W. Andrew Gowder, and…

Continue Reading Upcoming ABA CLE: “Supreme Court Takings – A First Look At Koontz And Horne”

Hat tip to ABA State and Local Government Law colleague (and fellow U.H. Law School alum) Julie Tappendorf for the lead on a newly-published article: John M. Baker and Katherine M. Swenson, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District: Trudging Through a Florida Wetland with Nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices, in the latest issue of the Zoning and Planning Law Report. Julie writes:

In the May 13, 2013 issue of West’s Zoning & Planning Law Report, John Baker and Katherine Swenson provide a compelling argument, or should I say six compelling arguments, for how the U.S. Supreme Court might decide the Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District case involving the denial of a wetlands permit.  For those of you who have been waiting 20 years for the Court to weigh in on another land use condition takings case (post Nollan-Dolan), or have been waiting since January…

Continue Reading Predicting The Koontz Case: Six Possible Outcomes

Cle-logoFor those of you attending the Virginia Eminent Domain Conference, here’s the expanded papers on “Tough Takings Questions: Regulatory Takings, Zoning Issues and Judicial Takings” and Public Use issues.

Use the password provided at the conference to open the pdf’s. It’s the same p/w for both. If you forgot the password, email me.

For those who did not attend, sorry folks, there are some benefits to coming to a conference! Y’all are going to have to wait for a bit — after a decent interval to allow the attendees to get their money’s worth, we’ll remove the password.

For more about the cases and books we discussed yesterday during my presentation on “Virginia’s Place in National Eminent Domain Trends, check these out:

  • Lingle v. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (gas station rent control, and the demise of the “substantially advance” test as a takings test).

     
    Continue Reading Materials From Today’s Virginia Eminent Domain Conference

    Here’s one to brighten your day, courtesy of the the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Flordia (that’s Tampa, to all you non-Floridians). In Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, No. 8:10-cv-819-T-23TBM (Apr. 12, 2013), the court held the county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance” that allows it to land bank for a future road corridors by means of an exaction (more details on the ordinance below), is “both coercive and confiscatory in nature and constitutionally offensive in both content and operation.” Slip op. at 4.

    We’ve seen this situation before — the government wants to build roads, but it either doesn’t have the money to buy or condemn the necessary property to do so, or it simply figures it can get it another way. The county had such plans, and designated future transportation corridors on its comprehensive plans. In 2005, the county adopted the…

    Continue Reading Fla Fed Ct: Exaction Scheme Is “Constitutional Mischief” To Avoid “Nettlesome Payment of ‘Just Compensation’”

    Koontz Sets The Stage

    The apparent sticking point during the January oral arguments in n Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), came to light via Justice Scalia’s questioning of the property owner’s counsel about whether anything had been “taken” when a property owner refused to accept a development permit conditioned on him paying for improvements to public land miles away from his property, because doing so would violate the unconstitutional conditions doctrine of Nollan/Dolan. For how could the owner claim that his property was taken when he didn’t accept the permit? The issue was succintly stated by Justice Kagan when she asked point-blank, “where is the taking?” (see p. 11 of the Koontz transcript).

    We’re still waiting for the opinion in that case so don’t have the Court’s answer just yet, but Part II of the…

    Continue Reading Horne v. USDA Oral Argument Preview: Is It The Takings Clause, Or Only The Just Compensation Clause?

    Here are the links to the materials and briefs from the Supreme Court’s three taking cases which we are discussing at today’s teleconference sponsored by the ABA’s Section on Litigation’s Environmental Litigation Commitee and the Condemnation, Zoning, and Land Use Committee. 

    Post-telecon note: thanks to everyone for joining us. I will be posting up the briefs in the Big Oak case now pending in the Court of Federal Claims that Rob Meltz mentioned in his “what’s next” talk about Arkansas Game. Update: here are the Big Oak briefs.Continue Reading Links And Materials From Today’s ABA Takings Teleconference

    Did we say free? (If you are an ABA member, that is.)

    Join us for a teleconference jointly sponsored by the ABA’s Section on Litigation’s Environmental Litigation Commitee and the Condemnation, Zoning, and Land Use Committee to discuss the latest and greatest in takings law, specifically the three cases the U.S. Supreme Court is ruling on this Term.

    Moderated by Dwight Merriam (Robinson & Cole, Hartford), panelists include me, Amy Bourlris (Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, Miami, Professor Steven Eagle (George Mason School of Law, Arlington), and Robert Meltz (Attorney-Adviser, American Law Division, Congressional Research Service, Adjunct Professor of Law, Georgetown Law, Washington)

    Date: Tuesday, February 26, 2013

    Time: Noon – 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time

    Register here.

    More information here. See you there. Come with your questions or comments.
    Continue Reading Still Time To Join Us Tomorrow For ABA Takings Roundable (Free!)

    DK_greenbag_1Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following, just because if the plastic bag ban hasn’t reached your jurisdiction yet, it certainly will (it has been adopted across Hawaii’s counties except for the City and County of Honolulu, for example).So it’s worthwhile to keep up with developments.

    In Schmeer v. County of Los Angeles, No. B240592 (Feb. 22, 2013), the California Court of Appeal concluded that L.A. County’s ban in unincorporated parts of the county on plastic bags in retail stores (and a 10 cent charge for paper bags) was not a “tax” that needed to be approved by the voters.

    The ordinance states that the money received for recyclable paper bags must be retained by the store and used only for (1) the costs of compliance with the ordinance; (2) the actual costs of providing recyclable paper bags; or (3) the costs of educational materials or…

    Continue Reading Cal App: Plastic Bag Ban Not A “Tax” Subject To Voter Approval

    Here’s what we’re reading on this Tuesday-after-a-long-weekend:

    • “Economic Impact in Regulatory Takings Law,” a forthcoming article by lawprof Steven J. Eagle about one of the prongs of the Penn Central takings test. Professor Eagle “concludes that unresolved issues and complexities in adjudicating the ‘economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’ test provide an additional reason why the conceptually incoherent Penn Central doctrine must be replaced.”
    • “NY Fed report sees cracks in eminent domain proposals” – “… a new blog from researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York suggests such a plan would have proved to be ineffective anyway. Their reasoning for this conclusion is that many of the targeted borrowers have already benefited from either falling interest

    …
    Continue Reading Tuesday Tidbits