Penn Central

Subscribe to Penn Central via RSS

SLG-Invitation-Chair-Reception-NYC-8-11-2017

If my colleagues don’t wise up and change their minds before August, I am slated to become Chair of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law (which, by the way, includes an Eminent Domain Committee, Chaired by Howard Roston, and co-Chaired by Kelly Walsh and John Peloso). On Friday, August 11, at the ABA Annual Meeting in New York City, we’ll be having a party to celebrate, and you are invited. 

Earlier that day, our Section is producing a CLE session about the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in Murr v. Wisconsin, “Murr and Beyond: Implications for Regulatory Takings,” featuring two of the arguing counsel in the case (John Groen (PLF), and Misha Tseytlin (Wisconsin SG), and commentary from me and Nancy Stroud (FL). Judge (ret.) Peter Buschbaum (NJ) is moderating. We’ll not only try and figure out what the majority did in Murr,…

Continue Reading Friday, Aug 11, 2017, New York City: Chair-Elect Reception, Unpacking Murr – ABA State & Local Govt Law Section

There’s a lot of buzz about “what’s next” after Murr v. Wisconsin, and what this case may augur for regulatory takings. There are already quite a few discussions and analysis panels scheduled, including these three in which we’re participating:

…
Continue Reading Your Post-Murr Reading List

If you are within striking distance of Madison next month, consider attending the “Property Rights and Land Use in Wisconsin” symposium at the U. Wisconsin Law School. 

This is a one-day conference, and as you might expect, one of the big focuses of the day will be the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Murr v. Wisconsin. The speakers will also cover legislative developments, as well as the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s decision in McKee v. Fitchburg (which reminds us to get this opinion out of our queue and onto the blog, which we will do shortly). 

Register here (a very modest $100 for the entire day). 

Brochure, U. Wisconsin’s “Property Rights and Land Use in Wisconsin” Symposium (July 20, 2017) 

Continue Reading U. Wisconsin Property Rights & Land Use Symposium (July 20, 2017)

After Murr, the pending cert petition in Lost Tree was D.O.A., and today, the Court made it official. Cert denied. We thought that the Federal Circuit’s denominator analysis was the better one (although pretty much anything would have been better than what Justice Kennedy and his Immortals came up with in Murr). But since Lone Tree was a property owner win in the Federal Circuit, cert denial isn’t a bad thing.

The denial also let stand the Federal Circuit’s (correct) rule that it isn’t an economically beneficial use when the only use left after a regulation is that the property may recover its value some time in the future (aka “investment value”). This blows significant holes in the government’s common argument that the regulation isn’t a wipeout or a significant loss under Penn Central, because property usually rises in value so one day, the economic impact…

Continue Reading Cert Denied In Lost Tree (Relevant Parcel)

Update: Here are my first thoughts on Murr – “Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test for Takings Clause Property in Murr v. Wisconsin“

Lot-lines-color-2

The title alone should tell you this was authored by Justice Kennedy, which means that, as we thought it might do, today the U.S. Supreme Court held in Murr v. Wisconsin, No. 15-214 (June 23, 2017) that in determining the “denominator” in regulatory takings cases — in other words, what “property” owned by the plaintiff is the claimed diminution in value of the taken property compared — that “a number of factors” make up the inquiry, including: (1) “the treatment of the land, in particular how it is bounded or divided, under state and local law” (i.e., title); (2) the “physical characteristics” of the property (your guess is as good as ours); and (3) the “value of the property under the challenged regulation”…

Continue Reading SCOTUS, 5-3 Affirms Murr By Penn Centralizing Parcel As A Whole Analysis, Which Must Consider “A Number of Factors”

Here’s the audio recording of the talk we gave to the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee earlier today. (Some of you may note that in the intro we say the talk was on “June 17,” but since that’s tomorrow, we assume you understand that is just an error.)

The links to the cases and materials we mentioned in the talk are posted here. Continue Reading Recording – “Takings: Emerging Issues” ABA State & Local Government Law Section Talk

Update: the audio recording is posted here.

* * * *

Here are the links to the cases we mentioned in today’s ABA State and Local Government Law Section presentation, “Takings: Emerging Issues.”

The “Larger Parcel” In Regulatory Takings (and Eminent Domain)

Emerging Issues

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA Presentation – “Takings: Emerging Issues”

ABA State and Local 2017-2017 conferences image

Mark your calendars for this Friday, June 16, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time for a free talk we’ll be giving, “Regulatory Takings: Emerging Issues.” 

Yes, it’s free, but there’s a catch: this talk is sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law’s Land Use Committee, and you have to be a Section member (or be willing to join us). One of the benefits of being a member is that you can sign on to these bi-monthly calls and learn about the latest developments in the broad range of topics the Committee covers. Ping me if you want to sign up.  

And what’s the deal with the graphic above? Well, starting in August 2017, I’ll be taking over as Chair of the Section (assuming my ABA colleagues do not come to their senses before then), and the big focus of the Chair is to…

Continue Reading Upcoming Free Takings Talk (Friday, June 16, 2017). But There’s A Catch…

Here’s the unanimous Supreme Court opinion, issued this morning in a case we’ve been following, Town of Chester v. Laroe Estates, No. 16-605 (June 5, 2017), a takings case, although the issue resolved by the Court is one of civil procedure. 

The Court’s holding is remarkably unremarkable: a plaintiff — including a plaintiff who intervenes in a lawsuit as of right under Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2) — must have Article III standing. We say “unremarkable” because we never could quite figure out why that proposition was apparently so controversial that it ended up with a lower court split: doesn’t every federal court plaintiff need to show that there’s a live case and controversy on every claim and form of relief that is alleged? Yes, the parties didn’t dispute it, and the Court, in the opinion authored by Justice Alito, reached that conclusion in the second sentence:…

Continue Reading SCOTUS: To Intervene As A Plaintiff (In A Takings Case), You Need Article III Standing (Duh)

We don’t normally post trial court decisions, particularly ones which simply dismiss a case. But the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania’s recent memorandum order in The Property Management Group, Ltd. v. City of Philadelphia, No. 17-1260 (May 23, 2017), which deals in part with a somewhat unusual takings claim, is posted here for two reasons. First, Williamson County. Second, the opening paragraph.  

The case involves Philadelphia’s notorious parking situation, something that — if you have ever parked a car on the street in that city — can be a real exercise in frustration and even fear. Predatory towing, ransoming cars, private spaces, and the like. The city council, apparently responding to towing abuses (see page 2 of the slip opinion, for example), adopted an ordinance which added a “ticket-to-tow requirement” which required that a law enforcement officer first certify that a vehicle…

Continue Reading Federal Court Dismisses Removed Takings Claim Under Williamson County … And That’s OK