Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

There’s still time to register for one or more upcoming CLE programs sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law:

I’ll be part of the “Hot Topics in Land Use” panel, speaking about recent developments in regulatory takings. These are replays of the in-person programs we put on at the recent Spring Meeting in Asheville, NC.

Register for all three programs and receive a 20% discount. Continue Reading Upcoming CLE Trifecta: Hot Topics In Land Use Law, Heirs Property, Urban Ag (July 15, 2014)

Check this out: Vermont lawprof John Echeverria has launched a blog about “Takings Litigation.” Which, given the predilections of the author (organizer of the anti-takings conference, and recently presented with the Koontz Catatonia Award), probably should be called “Takings Defense” or the “No Takings Blog,” but who are we to say? 

Samples of recent posts:

  • “Just when you thought the Koontz litigation couldn’t get any worse (see my article, Koontz: the Very Worst Takings Decision Ever?), the Florida Court of Appeals has issued a decision in the Koontz case on remand.”
  • “Importantly, the decision [Sherman v. Town of Chester] does not cast doubt on the general rule that when a litigant initially files a takings claim in federal court, the government defendant can raise Williamson County and insist that the takings claim be litigated in state court.”
  • “One thing seems clear about this case [

…
Continue Reading New Takings Blog – “Takings Litigation”

Lgo

ALI-CLE, the good folks who put on the annual programs on Eminent Domain and Land Valuation, and Condemnation 101: How to Prepare and Present an Eminent Domain Case, have announced the dates and venue for the 2015 conferences:

Thursday – Saturday, February 5-7, 2015 

Hotel Nikko, in San Francisco.

Those of you who have attended or taught at these conferences in the past know they are the premier programs on this topic, and feature exciting presentations and excellent faculty.

I’ve been honored to be asked to serve as the Planning Co-chair of the 32d annual Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation program, stepping into the able shoes of Leslie Fields, who retired last year. Joe Waldo is continuing as Planning Co-Chair. Joe and I are currently putting together the agenda and faculty for the program, and we will have more on that soon. Andrew…

Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars: 2015 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation, and Condemnation 101 – February 5-7, 2015, San Francisco

Remember that decision by a U.S. District Court in Tampa, Florida last year that we crowed about? The court held that a county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance” which allows it to land bank for future road corridors by means of an exaction is “both coercive and confiscatory in nature and constitutionally offensive in both content and operation.” 

A property owner brought a substantive due process claim, and the court first rejected the county’s argument that the substantive due process claim was not ripe under Williamson County because Hillcrest had not pursued a waiver or variance. It also concluded the Right of Way Preservation Ordinance violated the Takings Clause because it shifts the burden to disprove rough proportionality to the property owner and empowers the county to obtain land in excess of what it would otherwise get in the absence of the ordinance. The court enjoined enforcement of the…

Continue Reading 11th Circuit: Facial Challenge To Ordinance Must Be Brought When Ordinance Adopted

Here are the merits briefs in an important case set for argument later this month in the Hawaii Supreme Court.

The litigation is a series of two lawsuits that originated in state court in the Third Circuit (Big Island), one an original jurisdiction civil rights lawsuit, the other an administrative appeal. The essence of the plaintiff’s allegations is that the State Land Use Commission wrongfully amended the land use boundaries from urban to agriculture. Many years earlier, the LUC had amended the boundary to urban on the condition that the owner provide a certain number of affordable units by 2006. In 2008, the developer had not done so and the LUC ordered it to show cause why the land classification should not revert to agricultural.  

The State removed the civil rights lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Honolulu and promptly moved to dismiss, and this is the matter now…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Briefs In Bridge Aina Lea: Takings, State Land Reclassification, And Orders To Show Cause

The final words in most appellate oral arguments by the jurists are usually something along the lines of “we’ll let you know.” In Hawaii state courts, the Chief Justice signals you’re done with “we’ll take the case under advisement,” while in many federal courts, the presiding judge informs you “the case is submitted.” Or words to that effect. 

It was no different in the Ninth Circuit oral arguments in Bridge Aina Lea, LLC v. Chock, Nos. 12-15971, 12-16076, case argued earlier this week before the Ninth Circuit at its session in Honolulu. The case was “submitted for decision.” Listen yourself at the end of the oral argument recording.

Today, however, the panel issued this order withdrawing the submission, in anticipation of the upcoming Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in the related state litigation, scheduled for June 25, 2014. The NInth Circuit judges were keenly interested in the Hawaii…

Continue Reading 9th Cir Says “Let’s Wait” On Hawaii Supreme Court To Rule In Bridge Aina Lea

For those of you who follow the issue, here’s the latest in the “genetically modified organisms” issue, yet another one where Hawaii is apparently the epicenter. As we posted earlier, the County of Kauai adopted an ordinance regulating GMO’s which was immediately challenged in Federal District Court in Honolulu, while the County of Hawaii (Big Island) also adopted an ordinance that was challenged in state court by a farmer. 

The Big Island ordinance is now being challenged in Federal Court on a number of grounds (preemption, Commerce Clause, and takings). Read the complaint for yourself, below. 

Related articles
Links From Today’s Session On GMO Issues
Western Australia Supreme Court: GMO “Contamination?” No Worries, Mate
The Other Shoe Drops: Kauai Anti-GMO Ordinance Challenged In Federal Court
GMO Chapter 2 – Big Island Farmer:

Continue Reading Latest Federal Court Salvo In The GMO Front

In 1993, in order to protect seagrasses, the city of Sanibel adopted an ordinance prohibiting the new construction of docks and piers in certain areas of town. Plaintiffs, littoral owners who bought their land after the ordinance was in place, thought that — this being Florida, and an island — it was their right to build docks and the like (because doesn’t everybody in Florida have a boat?). They challenged the ordinance in state court as a violation of due process and did not substantially advance a legitimate state interest, asserting they possessed riparian rights, incluidng “reasonable docking rights.” The city removed the case to federal court, which dismissed the complaint because riparian rights, having their source in state law, are not “fundamental” rights, and thus form no basis for a substantive due process claim. 

In Kentner v. City of Sanibel, No.13-13893 (May 8, 2014), the Eleventh Circuit agreed.

Continue Reading 11th Circuit: Riparian Rights Not “Fundamental,” And Not Subject To Lingle

Update: PLF’s Dave Breemer on the decision “In a New Victory, Court Blasts Rules Barring Court Access for Property Owners,” while Gideon Kanner adds his thoughts in “Be Still, My Heart! Second Circuit Rules for a Property Owner In a Stinging Inverse Condemnation Opinion.” 

————————————

Check this out, just received: In Sherman v. Town of Chester, No. 13-1503-cv (May 16, 2014), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that a takings claim was ripe, and that Williamson County does not stand in the way. 

We love the way this opinion starts off, with a literary reference:

Hungry Joe packed up his bags and wrote happy letters home. He had flown the 25 missions required to complete a tour of duty. But thing were not so simple on Catch-22’s Pianosa island. He soon discovered that Colonel Cathcart had just raised the number of…

Continue Reading 2d Cir and Catch-22: Takings Case Ripe, “Seeking a final decision from the Town would be futile”

We’ve been tied up with some filings, and have not been able to get to our promised review of the Ninth Circuit’s recent decision in Horne v. United States. We will do so once we put one more  brief to bed, but until then, our colleagues in the Regulatory Takings Bar have published some thoughts:

  • The Horne Case Down the Tubes Again – Professor Gideon Kanner weighs in: “We are reminded of the insight of Fred Bosselman who once observed that property owners in inverse condemnation cases are denied due process of law, not by getting too little of it, but rather too much.”
  • The Grapes of Wrath Part II – A Return to Horne – Ben Rubin at the California Eminent Domain Report writes: “The Ninth Circuit found that as the Marketing Order operated against personal, rather than real, property, and because the Hornes conceded that they did

…
Continue Reading Raisin Hell – Links To Reports On Horne