Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

My Damon Key colleagues Mark Murakami and Tred Eyerly and I have posted our forthcoming essay Of Woodchucks and Prune Yards: A View of Judicial Takings From the Trenches on SSRN here, containing our thoughts on Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010), the “judicial takings” case. Mark, Tred, and I filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners in the case.

Here’s an excerpt from the Introduction to the article:

Justice Breyer must either (a) grapple with the artificial question of what would constitute a judicial taking if there were such a thing as a judicial taking (reminiscent of the perplexing question how much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?), or (b) answer in the negative what he considers to be the “unnecessary” constitutional question whether there is such a thing as a…

Continue Reading Of Woodchucks and Prune Yards: A View of Judicial Takings From the Trenches

Mark you calendars: from August 25-28, 2010 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, ALI-ABA is putting on the annual program, Land Use Institute: Planning, Regulation, Litigation, Eminent Domain, and Compensation.

We won’t be able to attend this year, but we have in the past, and the program and the faculty is first-rate. Go here for details, agenda, faculty list, and registration information. Continue Reading Land Use Institute – ALI-ABA Program – Aug. 25, 2010, Santa Fe

Mark you calendars: from August 25-28, 2010 in Santa Fe, New Mexico, ALI-ABA is putting on the annual program, Land Use Institute: Planning, Regulation, Litigation, Eminent Domain, and Compensation.

We won’t be able to attend this year, but we have in the past, and the program and the faculty is first-rate. Go here for details, agenda, faculty list, and registration information. Continue Reading Land Use Institute – ALI-ABA Program – Aug. 25, 2010, Santa Fe

This Friday, August 6, 2010 from 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. as part of the ABA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, the Section of State and Local Government Law is co-sponsoring a panel discussion of what was, in my opinion, the most fascinating case of the Supreme Court’s recently-concluded term, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010).

This Term, the Court dealt with corporate speech, guns, “crush videos,” process patents, and Sarbanes-Oxley, but in Stop the Beach Renourishment, the Court attempted to tackle the most metaphysical of questions: can a state supreme court decision “take” property by changing the law? In the case, the Court came tantalizingly close to holding that a state supreme court decision can run afoul of the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause and take property without just compensation. The Court concluded that the Florida Supreme Court’s…

Continue Reading Upcoming ABA Panel On The Judicial Takings Case (San Francisco 8/6/2010)

Guggenheim_enbanc

Last month, we attended the oral arguments in the rehearing en banc of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., Sep. 28, 2009).

The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held 2-1 that a takings challenge was ripe under Williamson County, and ruled the City of Goleta, California’s ordinance was a facial taking by applying the three-part Penn Central test. The court remanded the case to the district court for a calculation of compensation owed to the property owners. On March 12, 2010, the court ordered en banc review.

Our summary of the oral argument is posted here. Today, the court posted the video from the hearing, complete with 24-style split screen. Check it out for a rare cameras-in-the-courtroom view of a federal appeals court in action. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Posts Video Of Guggenheim (Rent Control Takings Case) En Banc Oral Arguments

Property_1800 I recently picked up a copy of Property Rights – Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Re-Examined (Bruce L. Benson, ed., Independent Institute 2010), available on-line here.

At 299 pages and with 13 entries, I haven’t had a chance to read the whole thing yet. But after an initial skim, a few of the chapters stand out: Steven Eagle on Assembling Land for Urban Development – The Case for Owner Participation, Ilya Somin on The Limits of Backlash – Assessing the Political Response to Kelo, and Scott Bullock on The Inadequacy of the Planning Process for Protecting Property Owners From the Abuse of Eminent Domain for Private Development. 

We will post more as we get further into the book, but for now, here’s the publisher’s summary: 

The U.S. Supreme Court decision, Kelo v. New London, has become a dramatic focal point for the broad use of eminent…

Continue Reading New Book: Property Rights – Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Re-Examined (2010)

More on the “judicial takings” case, Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dep’t of Environmental Protection, No. 08-11 (June 17, 2010).

Remember that at the ABA Annual Meeting next month in San Francisco, the Section of State and Local Government Law is co-sponsoring a panel discussion of the case. I’ll be moderating, and Jim Burling (Pacific Legal Foundation), John Echeverria (Vermont Law School), Richard Frank, University of California Boalt Hall Law School), and Dan Stengle, (Hopping Green & Sams, Petitioner’s counsel) are on the panel. If you are coming to the meeting, mark your calendar for August 6, 2010 from 2:30 – 4:00 p.m. at the Hilton San Francisco Union Square. More information here.

Anyway, here are the links:

…
Continue Reading More On The “Judicial Takings” Case (Stop The Beach Renourishment)

Here at inversecondemnation.com we also cover eminent domain, regulatory takings, land use, and environmental issues. We even cover election law when it strikes our fancy.

But here’s one that’s in our core competency: in Frick v. City of Salina, No. 101,355 (July 9, 2010) the Kansas Supreme Court held that property owner-plaintiffs did not meet their summary judgment burden of opposing the city’s motion, and affirmed a judgment that the city did not inversely condemn their property by denying them the ability to construct driveways to access their land.

After the city condemned their property, the Fricks moved their businesses to another nearby site. The move, according to the Fricks, “was thwarted by the ‘inappropriate regulatory’ action of the City. Slip op. at 8. The regulatory actions complained of included:

(1) denial of reasonable access to the relocation site during the Project; (2) construction activities…

Continue Reading Kansas: Inverse Condemnation Case Resolved By Summary Judgment Burdens

Heads up on a new article of interest to those of us who deal with exactions and Nollan/Dolan: Matthew Baker, Much Ado About Nollan/Dolan: The Comparative Nature of the Legislative Adjudication Distinctions in Exactions, 42 Urban Lawyer 171 (2010). Here’s a summary: 

Much has been made, by both commentators and courts, of the distinction between legislative and adjudicative land use exactions used to determine whether an exaction must meet the “essential nexus” requirement of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and the “rough proportionality” test of Dolan v. City of Tigard. But practical application of the distinction has been anything but simple, only adding to the “mess” and “muddle” of Takings Clause jurisprudence. While exactions jurisprudence is admittedly messy, the apparent analytical incoherence results primarily from the confused and inconsistent application of the Nollan/Dolan test by lower courts, which would no doubt prefer…

Continue Reading New Article On Legislative-Adjudicative Distinction In Nollan/Dolan Analysis

A rule of law set out over 100 years ago and which remains (as we say) good law qualifies as “well-established” by any standard. Village of Norwood v. Baker, 172 U.S. 269 (1898) set forth the rule that a special assessment for municipal improvements is only constitutional if the improvements result in the property being assessed enjoying special benefits, and then only to the extent of the benefit. If the benefits are merely those which inure to the public at large, or if the assessment exceeds the benefit conferred, the assessment is invalid.

Think of it as an “anti-givings” requirement: the cost of public benefits get absorbed by the public as a whole, but if property gets some benefit over and beyond those public benefits, it is fair to ask the property owner to pay. Otherwise, it’s a no-go.

In Hubbard v. City of Pierre, No. 25312-a-JKM (June…

Continue Reading Curb Appeal In South Dakota: No Special Benefit To Property Means That Special Assessment Is A Taking