Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

Here are the links to the cases and other items discussed today at the International Municipal Lawyers Association webinar with Dan Mandelker and Dwight Merriam. Most of these cases are also in your written materials.

  • South Carolina Bar’s

…
Continue Reading Links From Today’s IMLA Regulatory Takings Webinar

Last week, San Diego was on our karmic radar, as we were there for the annual ALI-ABA Eminent Domain conferences and there were a couple of cases and issues involving San Diego that popped up. This week, we’re off to the ABA Midyear meeting in New Orleans, so guess where the cases are coming from? YesContinue Reading CFC, New Orleans Edition

The San Diego area must be on the karmic radar this week, and here’s the latest: a Federal Circuit decision in a case involving the U.S. Border Patrol’s activities on private land on the border with Mexico. In Otay Mesa Property, L.P. v. United States, No. 2011-5002 (Jan. 25, 2012), the court held that an agreement by which property owners allowed the federal government to install motion-sensing devices on their land resulted in a permanent physical taking and not temporary. The court also clarified the property “taken,” and how just compensation should have been calculated.

You can’t get any closer to the border than San Diego’s Otay Mesa neighborhood. The plaintiffs own several parcels abutting the border, and 20 years ago their predecessor-in-title granted the Border Patrol an easement along the border to allow it to, well, patrol the border.

The Border Patrol stepped up its activities after 2001…

Continue Reading Fed Circuit On The Difference Between “Temporary” And “Permanent” Physical Takings

We’ve been watching Bowers v. Whitman, No. 10-24966 (Jan. 12, 2012), the case which challenged Oregon’s Measure 49, the statute adopted by initiative that replaced and modified the earlier Measure 37. Measure 37, for those not aware, was the initiative measure by which Oregon voters required the state to compensate owners whose private property was devalued by land use regulations. It essentially required the state to either allow development or pay, even if the regulation did not run afoul of the high thresholds of regulatory takings doctrine.  

Back to Measure 49. That statute, as the Oregon Supreme Court held, “conveys a clear intent to extinguish and replace the benefits and procedures that Measure 37 granted to landowners.” Corey v. Dep’t of Land Conservation & Dev., 184 P.3d 1109, 1113 (Or. 2008). But what of those landowners in process under Measure 37 when the voters adopted the new…

Continue Reading 9th Cir: No Vested Rights Taken By Oregon’s Measure 49

Now that we’ve decked the halls, its time to clear the decks: the end of 2011 is on the horizon, and in order to start 2012 off on a fresh note, here are opinions of interest lined up in our “to post” queue, but that we’ve not found the time to actually digest and post:

…
Continue Reading Year-End Opinion Dump

ALI-ABAGet ready, it’s that time of year again: the annual eminent domain law conferences by the American Law Institute-American Bar Association, this year to be held in San Diego from January 26-28, 2012.

Here’s the description of Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, the premiere program on condemnation law and related topics:

The power of eminent domain is being reshaped across the nation by court rulings and legislation. Much of the recent court activity and legislation has involved the controversial use, or attempted use, of eminent domain power to take private property for economic development by private parties. Redevelopment, however, is not the only fluid area in takings law. This national course of study addresses those areas where new developments in the law and procedure have and will reshape the practice. Learn what’s new in the cutting-edge areas of eminent domain law and how the practice in this field continues to evolve.

This popular and long running advanced course of study kicks off with a comprehensive update on eminent domain case law and legislation by a preeminent practitioner.

Each morning, the course focuses on hot issues and topics that affect practitioners today.

On Thursday and Friday afternoon, a dual track system addresses important substantive and practice topics in a series of breakout sessions. Registrants can learn about the key issues in substantive takings law from nationally recognized and experienced professionals. On the practice side, registrants can choose from another array of sessions chock full of practice pointers.

The course brings all the right participants together — lawyers, appraisers, condemning agencies, right-of-way professionals, and many others — to share valuable experiences and engage in healthy debate on these cutting-edge issues.

Networking opportunities are scheduled throughout the program, with breakfasts, networking breaks, a reception on Thursday afternoon, and social activities in the evenings arranged by a special Hospitality Committee. Come and meet with colleagues from around the nation, exchange ideas, enjoy the fellowship, and collect more than 16 hours of CLE credits.

This course runs concurrently with ALI-ABA’s annual Course of Study, Condemnation 101: Making the Complex Simple in Eminent Domain. This unique format allows practitioners who are new in the field of eminent domain to network with many of the nation’s most experienced condemnation lawyers, and to benefit from many of those same lawyers serving as their faculty. Special Offer: Attend Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and bring an associate to Condemnation 101 for 50% off.  ADD TO CART

We’re on the faculty (“The Role of Hawaii’s Unique Property Law in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Takings Cases“with Professor David Callies), so if you attend either course, please stop by and say hi.
Continue Reading ALI-ABA Annual Eminent Domain Conference, January 26-28, 2012, San Diego

Once again, our old friend and colleague Paul Schwind is following an interesting ongoing case. We’ve been tracking the “Bridge Aina Le`a” litigation, but have not had the time to digest the latest developments in a comprehensive fashion and Paul attended the recent federal court hearing in the federal phase, and has kindly provided us with the details. 

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 (that’s a writ of administrative mandate for you Californians). The State removed the civil rights lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Honolulu and promptly moved to dismiss, and this portion of the case nearly caused us to flash back to our Federal Courts class in law school, since it raised a host of procedural questions such as the…

Continue Reading Guest Post: Federal Courts Flashback – Takings And Vested Rights Challenge To Land Use Commission

Harmon

In Landlord’s Uphill Fight to Ease Rent Restrictions, The New York Times reports on the Harmon cert petition (we posted the petition and the amici briefs in that case here), a challenge to New York City’s rent control ordinance.

We won’t rehash our thoughts on the case, but wanted to point out what we thought was the most revealing passage from the Times article:

Mr. Harmon said he had appealed to his assemblywoman, Linda B. Rosenthal, a strong supporter of rent regulations. Ms. Rosenthal said Mr. Harmon had asked for an exception to rent regulations for his building, which she found untenable because it would, she said, extend to thousands of other people in “the vanishing middle class.”

“I understand he thinks he could make more money, that he is being deprived,” she said. “But I have so many constituents who would willingly trade his problems for theirs.”…

Continue Reading It’s Others’ Property, You Just “Own” It*

Count us in the “not surprised” column: the property owners have sought a panel rehearing or a rehearing en banc from the Federal Circuit in CCA Associates v. United States, No. 2010-5100 -5101 (Nov. 21, 2011).

The petition for rehearing asserts

If any case cried out for en banc review, this is the one. The decisions of this Circuit regarding the effect of the ELIHPA and LIHPRHA statutes are in conflict, not only with each other, but also with settled law on regulatory takings and contract formation. The panel majority acknowledged this conflict but held that it had no choice but to follow the Court’s decisions in Cienega Gardens v. United States, 503 F.3d 1266 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“Cienega X“) and Ciegega Gardens v. United States, 194 F.3d 1231 (Fed Cir. 1998) (“Cienega IV“).

The exceptionally important issues presented by this petition, including…

Continue Reading Petition For Rehearing/En Banc In CCA Associates: Time To “Sort Out” Takings Law

We’re gearing up for a Supreme Court argument tomorrow, so don’t have time at the moment to digest the entirety of today’s opinion in Avenida San Juan P’ship v. City of San Clemente, No. G043479 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2011). But a quick glance tells us we’re going to like it.

A California trial court concluded that the city’s zoning a 2.85 acre parcel with a density of one house per 20 acres, while the surrounding properties are zoned at a density of four houses per acre was unconsitutional “spot zoning.” The court issued a writ of mandate (remember, this is California) ordering the City to accept the property owner’s application to develop four houses on the parcel.

The trial court also found a Penn Central taking and ordered the City to either comply with the writ or pay $1.3 million in just compensation for the…

Continue Reading Cal Ct App To City: Either Reverse Your Unconstitutional Spot Zoning, Or Pay. Your Choice.