Nollan/Dolan | Exactions

Subscribe to Nollan/Dolan | Exactions via RSS

SCOTUSblog has designated West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), as a petition to watch for today’s conference.

That’s the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land.

“Petitions to watch” are those petitions which SCOTUSblog predicts have a reasonable chance of a grant (besides their own, of course). Continue Reading West Linn Case A “Petition To Watch” – Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

Hold the presses! In an unusual move spurred by a recent decision by the Florida Supreme Court, the petitioner has filed a supplemental brief in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), the case which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land.

Earlier this week, we thought we had seen the final briefs in the case, but alas no. The petitioner’s supplemental brief discusses the Florida Supreme Court’s opinion in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011), which held that Nollan and Dolan analysis is limited to real estate exactions, and do not apply to demands for offsite mitigation. The brief argues:

The Florida Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz underscores the importance…

Continue Reading Late-Breaking: Supplemental Brief In West Linn Case: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

We’ve been thinking a lot about exactions lately.

First, it was the petition for certiorari in West Linn Corporate Park LLC v City of West Linn, No. 11-299 (petition for cert. filed Sep. 6, 2011), which asks whether the nexus and “rough proportionality” tests for a regulatory taking in Nollan and Dolan are limited to government demands for land. Then, late last week the Florida Supreme Court disagreed with the California and Texas Supreme Courts, and held in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011) that Nollan and Dolan analysis is limited to real estate exactions, and do not apply to demands for offsite mitigation.

Now we’re back to the West Linn case, since the parties have filed their final briefs, and the Court is scheduled to decide whether to take the case at its upcoming November 10, 2011 conference. So…

Continue Reading Final Cert Briefs In West Linn Case: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

This just in: on November 10, 2011, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether it has found the vehicle to resolve an issue the lower courts have vehemently disagreed upon, whether the Nollan/Dolan nexus/rough proportionality analysis is limited to exactions of real property. See West Linn Corporate Park, LLC v. City of West Linn, No. 11-299.

The Ninth Circuit concluded it does not, disagreeing with the California and Texas Supreme Courts, which have held that Nollan/Dolan is applicable to all exactions, not just demands for land. Yesterday, the Florida Supreme Court weighed in, holding in St. Johns River Water Management Dist v. Koontz, No. SC09-713 (Nov. 3, 2011):

Accordingly, we hold that under the takings clauses of the United States and Florida Constitutions, the Nollan/Dolan rule with regard to “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” is applicable only where the condition/exaction sought by…

Continue Reading Fla S Ct: Nollan/Dolan Applies Only To Exactions Of Land

IMG_6999

“Yosemite,” according to California Place Names, Erwin Gudde’s seminal work on the origins of (surprise) California place names, means “they are killers.” It was “[e]vidently a name given to the Indians of the valley by those outside it.”

I raise this historical tidbit because I must admit to feeling a little like “those outside it” when I was invited to speak about regulatory takings at the California State Bar’s Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite. I figured as a conference devoted to environmental law, it was a going to be a decidedly skeptical audience, given my advocacy for property owners and property rights. I accepted the invitation nonetheless, heartened that this conference wasn’t going to be an echo chamber and that they were at least open to hearing competing ideas.

It turns out that my prediction about “they are killers” was not accurate — the audience, while not exactly…

Continue Reading Yosemite Seminar Summary – Regulatory Takings: Looking Back And Looking Forward

Here’s the latest in the lengthy West Linn Corporate Park tale from Oregon. After having bounced from federal court, to the Oregon state courts, then back to federal court, the case is now in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court.

The issue in the case is whether the Ninth Circuit was correct when it held in an unpublished memorandum opinion that “[t]he Supreme Court has not extended Nollan and Dolan beyond situations in which the government requires a dedication of private real property. See Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc., 844 U.S. 528, 547 (2005). We decline to do so here.” Slip op. at 4-5.

Weak, Ninth Circuit, weak. Is the issue of whether Nollan and Dolan‘s nexus and rough proportionality requirements apply only to exactions of land — but do not govern exactions of other types of property such as money — so settled that you blow…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Are Nollan And Dolan Limited To Exactions Of Land?

Yosemite_conference Here are the links to the cases and other items discussed today at the session Regulatory Takings – Looking Back and Looking Forward at the Cal State Bar’s Environmental Law Section’s Environmental Law Conference at Yosemite.

These cases are also in your written materials.

…
Continue Reading Links From “Regulatory Takings: Looking Back And Looking Forward” (Cal. State Bar Yosemite Conference)

Yosemite_conference One conference down, one to go.

We’re on the way back from the Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference in Beijing, and on our way to the California State Bar Environmental Law Section’s annual conference at Yosemite N.P., which begins later this week. More information about the conference here.

Along with U.C. Berkeley law professor Joseph Sax and Deputy California Attorney General Daniel L. Siegel, I will be speaking about “Regulatory Takings: Looking Back and Looking Forward.” E. Clement Shute will moderate the panel discussion.

We will be discussing the seminal regulatory takings cases from the past 20 years. “The panelists, who have been involved in several of the most significant takings cases since even before the founding of the annual Yosemite Environmental Law Conference twenty years ago, will highlight key decisions, offer their views on the evolution of takings law, and discuss cutting-edge issues raised by more recent…

Continue Reading California Bar’s Yosemite Conference: “Regulatory Takings: Looking Back and Looking Forward”

Climatechangemongraphpage

“There is strong consensus in the international scientific community that climate change is occurring and that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities contribute to climate change.”

So begins Climate Change and Regulatory Takings in Coastal Hawaii, a monograph by Douglas Codiga, Dennis Hwang, and Chris Delaunay, published by the University of Hawaii Sea Grant College Program’s Center for Island Climate Adaptation and Policy. 

We’re not entering into the debate about whether global warming/climate change is or isn’t happening. But the one certain thing is that every regulatory entity from the U.N. on down to your local neighborhood board believes it is real, and seems to want to do something about it. Thus, the question is how property owners may be affected by those actions, and what they can do in response. This report doesn’t really resolve anything, but it does establish the framework and makes some recommenations. From…

Continue Reading Climate Change And Regulatory Takings In Coastal Hawaii

You have to like any sport that the New York Times describes as “like driving full speed through an endless loop of red lights. Luck often expires in a cloudburst of steam and scattered auto parts.” That’s how the Times described “figure 8 car racing.”

But not everyone likes figure 8 racing or related activities, it seems. After a property owner stored several of his race cars on his land and annoyed some residents of Indianola, Iowa, the city adopted an ordinance requiring land on which figure 8 cars (and others) are stored to be enclosed by a fence if two or more cars are present. The property owner sued the city in state court alleging a regulatory taking and the city removed the case to federal court. After a bench trial, the district court held that the ordinance was not a taking.

In Iowa Assuarnce Corp. …

Continue Reading Eighth Circuit: No Physical Take For Fence Requirement