Penn Central

Subscribe to Penn Central via RSS

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!)

Here’s the amicus brief filed today on behalf of the International Municipal Lawyers Association in Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 12-123 (cert. granted Nov. 20, 2012). The brief argues:

Petitioners have needlessly complicated the vindication of their asserted rights under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment by failing to file a straightforward claim for just compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. Petitioners have long participated in the raisin industry marketing program which they now believe results in a taking. Thus, they could easily have filed a claim for just compensation in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims based on this asserted taking. Instead, petitioners decided to disregard federal law requiring that they participate in the program and now seek to invoke the Takings Clause to defend against the sanctions imposed as a result of their illegal action.

This effort should fail for three…

Continue Reading IMLA Amicus Brief In California Raisin Takings Case: Tucker Act Is Exclusive Method Of Raising Takings Arguments

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

If you are a member of the ABA, mark your calendars for Tuesday, February 26, 2013, noon to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, for a free 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.

Here’s the description:

For the first time since 2005, the U.S. Supreme Court hasthree property rights cases on its docket. One of them, Arkansas Game &Fish, regarding compensation for flooding, was decided in December.  Another,Koontz, concerning the applicability of the Nollan and Dolan nexustests, has been argued. The final case, Horne, a most unusual case about whatmight be described as raisin sequestration, is still on the sidelines.

An expert panel — two practitioners, a federal researcher,and a law professor…

Continue Reading ABA Takings Roundtable – The U.S. Supreme Court Property Rights Cases – Feb. 26, 2013

What we’re reading today:

  • Grand Central Station and The Takings Clause – from the Constitutional Law Prof Blog, a link to a WNYC/NPR podcast about Grand Central Terminal and the Penn Central takings case. Worth listening, if only to hear the money quote near the end: “you see New Yorkers all the time staking claim in this building, pointing up at cerulean blue sky saying ‘hey, this belongs to us.'” Yes, we guess it does. And you know what? You didn’t pay for it.
  • Another one about the 100th anniversary of Grand Central: Gideon Kanner writes Calling All Grand Central Junkies!, linking to the NY Times‘s republication of its 1913 special celebrating the opening of the terminal.
  • In that vein, a snarky commentary about the wonders of Pennsylvania Station. Who needs a cerulean blue sky?
  • In what reads more like a redeveloper’s press release, the Washington Post

…
Continue Reading Wednesday Round-Up: Grand Central, Oysters No More, And Originalist Takings

We’re sensing a trend here: takings cases where the property owners/plaintiffs are dead by the time their cases get considered by the Supreme Court. The week before last, the Court heard arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), a case where the original landowner has passed on to his final reward after arguing for decades that his property was taken. Yet the District argues a taking hasn’t even occured yet.

Now comes a cert petition, recently filed, seeking review of a similiar situation, the Federal Circuit’s decision in Estate of Hage v. United States, 687 F.3d 1281 (Fed. Cir. 2012). In that case, the court held that a 22-year old takings case was not ripe because even though the agency denied Hage’s every application for a grazing permit, it might issue a special use permit that might…

Continue Reading New Cert Petition: Is Interference With Use Of Vested Water Right A Per Se Or Penn Central Taking?

43_ELR_10189_Page_01Thanks to the folks at the Environmental Law Institute, who have allowed us to reprint an article from a recent Environmental Law Reporter which brings some clarity to the subject of the “denominator” issue in regulatory takings.

In Temporary Takings, Tahoe Sierra, and the Denominator Problem, William W. Wade, Ph.D., a resource economist with the firm Energy and Water Economics (Columbia, Tennessee), writes:

Hundreds of briefs, decisions, and journal articles debating “how much loss is enough” should be sufficient proof that the Keystone Bituminous “taking fraction” provides poor guidance to decisionmaking in partial regulatory takings. The Penn Central court intended to measure the severity of economic impact by interference with distinct investment-backed expectations. Where lost income from use of the property is at stake, standard economics requires the denominator in the “taking fraction” to be the owner’s investment in the property. Instead, too many judicial decisions have…

Continue Reading Temporary Takings, Tahoe Sierra, and the Denominator Problem

We’re tied up all day in the 10th Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, but two other bloggers have stepped up to fill the gap, offering cogent analysis and some contrarian thoughts about the recent oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).

Most of the existing commentary, ours included, thought that the decision may turn on whether Justice Scalia, the author of Nollan, thought it fatal to a takings theory that the property owner declined to accept the permit. However, Florida land use lawyer Jacob Cremer has a slightly different view, and does not share the pessimism. He attended the oral arguments and provides an eyewitness account and his analysis here. His conclusion? Don’t be so quick to write off the case just yet. Same for “Koontz oral argument: Should Nollan and Dolan apply …

Continue Reading More On Koontz Oral Arguments: Is Nollan A Theory Dependent Upon Accepting An Unconsitutional Condition, Then Challenging It As A Taking?

In addition to our summary of and reaction to yesterday’s oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), here is the leading commentary from other sources:

  • Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog: “The very idea that an unconstitutional “taking” had occurred to an owner of a small plot of ground in Florida seemed near to vanishing, propelled toward oblivion by a spreading fear on the bench that maybe the entire regulatory apparatus of government might be at risk. Credit lawyers for a state agency and the federal government for deepening this anxiety.”
  • Greenwire‘s Lawrence Hurley: Supreme court: Justices weigh Fla. property rights dispute: “Rather than focus on the two Supreme Court precedents on permitting conditions, some justices seemed to agree with the Obama administration that, if Koontz did have a claim, it would be in the form of

…
Continue Reading The Good, The Bad, And The Scalia: Koontz Oral Argument Round-Up