Nollan/Dolan | Exactions

Subscribe to Nollan/Dolan | Exactions via RSS

Here’s a case that reveals exactly what is wrong with the Supreme Court’s ripeness doctrine in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). As we noted in this post, it’s “a seemingly endless procedural game where property owners are forced to keep guessing which shell the pea is under, all the while paying their attorneys to litigate matters having nothing to do with the question of whether a local government’s regulations have gone ‘too far.'”

The Oregon Supreme Court’s opinion in West Linn Corporate Park v. City of West Linn, No. S056322 (Sep. 23, 2010) only confirms our belief that the Court never intended Williamson County to be wielded in this fashion, and in effect deny property owners their day in court.

This case has a tortured procedural history. It started off in state court, as required by Williamson County. The property…

Continue Reading Williamson County Unbound: Takings Case Starts In State Court, Is Removed To Federal Court, Is Certified To State Court, Which Decides The Case On Federal Law

Heads up on a new article of interest to those of us who deal with exactions and Nollan/Dolan: Matthew Baker, Much Ado About Nollan/Dolan: The Comparative Nature of the Legislative Adjudication Distinctions in Exactions, 42 Urban Lawyer 171 (2010). Here’s a summary: 

Much has been made, by both commentators and courts, of the distinction between legislative and adjudicative land use exactions used to determine whether an exaction must meet the “essential nexus” requirement of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the “rough proportionality” test of Dolan v. City of Tigard. But practical application of the distinction has been anything but simple, only adding to the “mess” and “muddle” of Takings Clause jurisprudence. While exactions jurisprudence is admittedly messy, the apparent analytical incoherence results primarily from the confused and inconsistent application of the Nollan/Dolan test by lower courts, which would no doubt prefer…

Continue Reading New Article On Legislative-Adjudicative Distinction In Nollan/Dolan Analysis

A rule of law set out over 100 years ago and which remains (as we say) good law qualifies as “well-established” by any standard. Village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 (1898) set forth the rule that a special assessment for municipal improvements is only constitutional if the improvements result in the property being assessed enjoying special benefits, and then only to the extent of the benefit. If the benefits are merely those which inure to the public at large, or if the assessment exceeds the benefit conferred, the assessment is invalid.

Think of it as an “anti-givings” requirement: the cost of public benefits get absorbed by the public as a whole, but if property gets some benefit over and beyond those public benefits, it is fair to ask the property owner to pay. Otherwise, it’s a no-go.

In Hubbard v. City of Pierre, No. 25312-a-JKM (June…

Continue Reading Curb Appeal In South Dakota: No Special Benefit To Property Means That Special Assessment Is A Taking

We rarely post developments from trial courts, but every now and then a trial court order is so interesting that we deviate from our usual rule. Here’s one that’s worth sharing.

In Sterling v. California Coastal Comm’n, No. CIV. 482448 (Cal. Super. June 18, 2010), the San Mateo County Superior Court (the county immediately south of San Francisco) invalidated a permit condition imposed by the California Coastal Commission that would have required the property owners maintain their property “in active agricultural use,” meaning that they “either personally conduct agriculture on all their land or enter into a lease with a third party willing to engage in agricultural use on the land.” In other words, forced farming.

You read that right. Did we mention that the family seeking the permit are not farmers or ranchers, that the vast majority of the 143-acre parcel is not prime ag soil, that the…

Continue Reading Permit Condition Requiring “Active” Farming Struck Down Under Nollan/Dolan

The WMA Reporter, the monthly publication of the Western Manufactured Communities Housing Association has published A Regulatory Takings Glossary (or, How to Translate Property Rights Lawyerspeak), my short article that attempts to deconstruct some of the more common terms property lawyers toss about. Here’s the Introduction:

One of my law school professors once remarked (hopefully in jest) “if it ain’t Latin, it ain’t the law.” While thankfully we have moved away from the days when Latin and Norman French were the languages of the law, those of us who regularly represent property owners defending their rights sometimes toss about terms that, although they purport to be standard English, often make normal people look at us askance.

We may forget that not everyone might understand what we mean when we say, for example, “The court dismissed the regulatory takings claim on ripeness grounds under Williamson County because the…

Continue Reading A Regulatory Takings Glossary (or, How to Translate Property Rights Lawyerspeak)

Most of the time when we think of impact fees and other development exactions, Nollan and Dolan spring immediately to mind. In those two cases, the Court established the requirement that exactions have a reasonable relationship (“nexus”) to some ill caused by a proposed development, and be “roughly proportional” to the impact created by the development.

Absent a nexus and proportionality, an exaction is “not a valid regulation of land use but ‘an out-and-out plan of extortion.'” Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (citations omitted). The Court was worried that absent a nexus and proportionality, impact fees, in-lieu fees, and development exactions were a form of “pay to play” where local governments take advantage of the fact that a property owner seeks development approvals, to leverage land other property or cash to address impacts not caused by the property owner.

However, Nollan/Dolan is not…

Continue Reading Impact Fee Not Reasonably Related To Burden Created By Development

Here are two opinions just received that look awfully interesting, but that we haven’t had a chance to read in detail:

  • Beyer v. City of Marathon, No. 3D08-2864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 9, 2010) – denial of Beneficial Use Determination started limitations period on an as-applied takings claim, meaning that inverse condemnation complaints were timely filed.

More details to follow.Continue Reading New Opinions: Inverse Condemnation Statute Of Limitations, Impact Fee Nexus

The latest skirmish in California’s mobile home rent control wars, this time from the California Court of Appeal, Fourth District, in two cases out of San Diego county, MHC Financing Ltd. P’ship v. City of Santee, No. D053345 (Mar. 15, 2010).

The cases present a convoluted series of facts and procedural twists which we are not going to rehash, but recommend that you read yourself. It’s a long opinion (50 pages), but it’s worth delving into the details. The court held:

  • First, the property owner “sustained no legally remediable injury” from the retroactive application of a mobile home rent control ordinance which the city adopted to correct errors in an earlier-adopted mobile home rent control ordinance (the erroneous ordinance was based on the original version of a proposed initiative ordinance, and not the modified initiative ordinance which was certified by petition) (slip op. at 15-19).
  • Damages are not an

…
Continue Reading California Court Of Appeal: Takings Claims Brought Too Early, Too Late, And No Damages For Violations Of The Right To Petition (Inter Alia)

Aliaba We just wrapped up the annual three-day Festival of Eminent Domain Law, otherwise known as the American Law Institute | American Bar Association’s two CLE conferences, “Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation,”and “Condemnation 101: How To Prepare and Present an Eminent DomainCase.” 

Dana Berliner, Matt Fellerhoff and I spoke about about “Winning Arguments in Challenging the Right toTake and Public Use” in the Land Valuation course, and in the 101course, I presented a session on “Voir Dire: Selecting a Jury in a Post-Kelo Era in a Down Economy” with William Blake and Susan MacPherson.

The depth of talent teaching and attending these courses is unbelievable, so I always learn more at these conferences than I impart. Among the other presenters were our fellow law bloggers Gideon Kanner, Anthony Della Pelle and Edward McKirdy. Internet marketing strategist Jayne Navarre also presented an interesting session on using…

Continue Reading ALI-ABA Annual Eminent Domain Conference Wrap-Up

On Wednesday, Honolulu lost its iconic former Mayor, Frank Fasi. Mayor Fasi will be remembered for a lot of things, but we here at inversecondemnation.com will fondly recall his cheek when it came to exactions and in lieu payments. Two of the more well known examples:

  • During the second wave of investment in Hawaii from Japan, he announced that any golf course developer who wished to obtain permits from the City and County of Honolulu would have to pay a $100 million impact fee. We’re not sure whether anyone ever paid the fee, and we’re pretty sure that even in the days before Nollan and Dolan that a court would cast a skeptical eye towards it, but sometimes you just have to admire the pure audacity of something.
  • In a case involving Queen’s Beach on Oahu’s east shore, the director of Mayor Fasi’s Department of Land Utilization testified that

…
Continue Reading Getting The “Goodies” And Honolulu’s $100 Million Golf Course Exaction