Penn Central

Subscribe to Penn Central via RSS

The headline of this post shouldn’t be that surprising, especially when the the property owner purchased the land already subject to a floodplain designation, and those regulations effectively prohibited development.

But the two twists in the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in Columbia Venture, LLC v. Richland County, No. 27563 (Aug. 12, 2015), were (1) when Columbia Venture purchased the land, the floodplain designation didn’t encompass as much of the land as it eventually did, and the larger area was only preliminarily designated, and (2) various county agencies had informed Columbia that there was a chance it might get permission to build even if the regulations were eventually adopted.   

Those twists, however, were not enough to save Columbia’s takings claim, and the court rejected both its categorical and Penn Central arguments.  

The facts of the case are somewhat dense, but here’s what you need to know. Columbia…

Continue Reading No Taking When Owner Prohibited From Developing In Floodplain

Here’s a short one from the Court of Appeals of Texas, Eighth District, involving how well a regulatory takings claim needs to be pleaded in a complaint. 

In County of El Paso v. Navar, No 08-14-00250-CV (Aug. 7, 2015), the court held that a pro se plaintiff who alleged, among other things, that the County refused “

to issue certificates of 

compliance to him without a legitimate basis unreasonably interfered with his right to use and 

enjoy his property as a mobile home park” 

was specific enough to give the County notice of the allegation, and should not be dismissed.

Read the opinion for the details of the claim, but here’s the critical allegation in the complaint:

The [County]’s conduct, as alleged, was intentional and constituted an unreasonably interfered [sic] with [his] right to use and enjoy his property. The economic impact and the extent to which the regulation…

Continue Reading Tex App: Penn Central Claim Was Poorly Drafted, But It’s Good Enough

Our colleague William Wade, in addition to being an economist, is a prolific author on the topic we find fascinating, takings. He looks at the issues with an economists’ perspective, and we’ve found his articles very helpful. We’ve even posted a few over the years:

Bill has graciously sent us a guest post, a preview of what may be his next article.

He focuses on the impact of the Texas Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Edwards Aquifer Authority v. Day, 369 S.W.3d 814, 832 (Tex. 2012), in which the court held that land ownership…

Continue Reading Guest Post – Liquid Gold, or Water For Pecans: Valuation of Texas Water

To those able to join us today for IMLA’s “The Takings Issue” webinar, thank you. Here are the links to the items which I discussed:

On Koontz:

On California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose:

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s “The Takings Issue” Webinar

In State ex rel. Dep’t of Transportation v. Eighth Judicial Circuit, No. 15-19376 (June 25, 2015), the Nevada Supreme Court covered territory addressed by other courts recently (see here by North Carolina, Florida, and here by California) — whether there’s a taking when an agency with the power of eminent domain takes steps to condemn property, but hasn’t actually done so yet.

Here, the Nevada court concluded that there wasn’t a taking, because even though the DOT announced “Project Neon,” a “six-phase, 20- to 25- year highway improvement for the Interstate Highway 15 (I-15) corridor between Sahara Avenue and the U.S. Route 95/I-15 interchange in Las Vegas” which included plaintiff’s property, it did not result in a “de facto moratorium” on development as the property owner characterized it.

Rather, the court viewed the DOT’s actions as preliminary because the plaintiff’s property “is not anticipated to be…

Continue Reading Nevada: No Regulatory Taking When DOT Announced Future Plans To Condemn

Everyone is distracted today by the too-big-to-fail “Obamacare” ruling by the 6-3 Supreme Court (or, as Justice Scalia called it “SCOTUScare“), in which the Court concluded that the vibe of a statute matters more than its actual language, and the Court’s ruling in the “disparate impact” fair housing case (speaking of which, we wish the Court would apply the same standards to pretext in eminent domain), and we certainly wouldn’t want to divert your attention from that thrilling enterprise, so we’ll keep it brief with this post. 

In Teitlebaum v. South Florida Water Mgmt District, No. 3D14-0963 (June 24, 2015), the Florida District Court of Appeals held that there’s no such thing as condemnation blight in an inverse condemnation case. Teitlebaum and her neighbors among them have owned 3,550 acres of Ag-zoned land on the edge of the Everglades for decades, “apparently hoping that the land…

Continue Reading Florida App: Inverse Plaintiffs Must First Show A Wipeout Taking Before “Condemnation Blight” Considered

Apa_2015_planning_law_review

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the American Planning Association is putting on the 2015 Planning Law Review, a program highlighting the most important and topical cases decided by the courts recently. Here’s the program description:

Planning feels the impact of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts. How will their rulings affect you? Get a briefing on the year’s legal developments, from First Amendment issues to environmental actions, housing, and equal access. Presenters also will discuss major legislative initiatives and APA’s amicus filings. Join in a lively, informative program you and your staff, colleagues, and officials won’t want to miss. This program is also suitable for planning commissioners.

Joining me on the faculty are Jason Jordan, Director, Policy and Communications, American Planning Association (Moderator); Nancy Ellen Stroud, Lewis, Stroud & Deutsch; John M. Baker, Greene Espel; and John Echeverria, Professor of…

Continue Reading Upcoming APA Webinar: 2015 Planning Law Review

We are distracted today so haven’t had the time to write up our initial thoughts about Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275 (June 22, 2015), the California raisins takings case which the Supreme Court decided yesterday.

So instead we did this video, a take off on those goofy tech “unboxing” videos.

We’ll have more in the traditional format once we have a chance to write something down.  Continue Reading Unboxing Video: Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture

… look no further than the above report from The Daily Show.

Yeah, it’s satire and does at times make light of a serious case, but the USDA was trying to defend a regulation that branded the Hornes as “raisin outlaws,” going so far as to hire a private security firm to “investigate the product” that the Hornes were defrauding the government of (dried fruit).

Top off “the world’s most outdated law” with the Ninth Circuit’s ridiculous avoidance after the Supreme Court’s earlier remand (the Takings Clause does not apply with equal force to personal property as it does to land) , and you have the recipe for success and an 8-1 ruling. 

Related articles
Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On

…
Continue Reading Here’s Why The Supreme Court Held The Raisin Marketing Order Was Unconstitutional…

Update: here’s more Horne talk, in addition to our own initial thoughts in the above video and this post (“Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy“):

…
Continue Reading Raisin Round-Up