Regulatory takings

Subscribe to Regulatory takings via RSS

The WMA Reporter, the monthly publication of the Western Manufactured Communities Housing Association has published A Regulatory Takings Glossary (or, How to Translate Property Rights Lawyerspeak), my short article that attempts to deconstruct some of the more common terms property lawyers toss about. Here’s the Introduction:

One of my law school professors once remarked (hopefully in jest) “if it ain’t Latin, it ain’t the law.” While thankfully we have moved away from the days when Latin and Norman French were the languages of the law, those of us who regularly represent property owners defending their rights sometimes toss about terms that, although they purport to be standard English, often make normal people look at us askance.

We may forget that not everyone might understand what we mean when we say, for example, “The court dismissed the regulatory takings claim on ripeness grounds under Williamson County because the…

Continue Reading A Regulatory Takings Glossary (or, How to Translate Property Rights Lawyerspeak)

The_men_who_stare_at_goats According to this news release, the Ninth Circuit will offer remote viewing of the upcoming oral arguments in three en banc cases, including the rent control takings case, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta (which we’re following here). 

“Remote viewing” does not mean you have to psychically tune into the arguments, nor does it equal webcasting as many state appeals courts do. Instead, it means that if you are in San Francisco, Portland, or Seattle and you find yourself in the neighborhood of the Ninth Circuit’s courthouse in those cities at 2pm on Tuesday, June 22, 2010, you can watch a live video and audio feed.

Get thee to the courthouse: it’s “first-come-first-served” according to the news release.

Us? We’re going to be in L.A. that day, so we plan to camp out on the courthouse steps like those Star Wars and iPhone people to insure ourselves a…

Continue Reading The Men Who Stare At Judges: 9th Circuit To Provide “Remote Viewing” Of En Banc Oral Arguments

On Tuesday, June 22, 2010 starting at 2:00 p.m., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the en banc review of a takings challenge to the City of Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance (RCO).

In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., Sep. 28, 2009), a three-judge panel held the city’s RCO was a regulatory taking. The court found the case ripe under Williamson County, and addressed the merits of the takings claim under the three-factor regulatory taking test of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

On March 12, 2010, the court ordered en banc review.

The arguments will take place in Courtroom Three of the Richard H. Chambers Courthouse (125 South Grand Avenue, Pasadena, California). While we won’t be able to live blog the arguments, we are

…
Continue Reading June 22 Oral Arguments In Ninth Circuit Rent Control Takings Case (Guggenheim)

Most of the time when we think of impact fees and other development exactions, Nollan and Dolan spring immediately to mind. In those two cases, the Court established the requirement that exactions have a reasonable relationship (“nexus”) to some ill caused by a proposed development, and be “roughly proportional” to the impact created by the development.

Absent a nexus and proportionality, an exaction is “not a valid regulation of land use but ‘an out-and-out plan of extortion.'” Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (citations omitted). The Court was worried that absent a nexus and proportionality, impact fees, in-lieu fees, and development exactions were a form of “pay to play” where local governments take advantage of the fact that a property owner seeks development approvals, to leverage land other property or cash to address impacts not caused by the property owner.

However, Nollan/Dolan is not…

Continue Reading Impact Fee Not Reasonably Related To Burden Created By Development

Today, by a 3-2 vote, the Hawaii Supreme Court declined to review the decision of the Intermediate Court of Appeals in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, 122 Haw. 34, 222 P.3d 441 (Haw. Ct. App. 2009), which held that “Act 73” (codifed here and here) was a taking. [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief in the ICA supporting the property owners, and filed an amicus brief urging the Hawaii Supreme Court to accept certiorari.

In Act 73, the Hawaii Legislature declared that title to shoreline land naturally accreted cannot be registered by anyone except the State, and that only the State could quiet title to accreted land. The ICA held that the Act was a taking of accreted land which existed in 2003 when the Act was adopted, but that it  was not a taking of what the ICA called “future accretions.”

The court…

Continue Reading HAWSCT Denies Cert In Beach Accretion Case

Here are two opinions just received that look awfully interesting, but that we haven’t had a chance to read in detail:

  • Beyer v. City of Marathon, No. 3D08-2864 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. June 9, 2010) – denial of Beneficial Use Determination started limitations period on an as-applied takings claim, meaning that inverse condemnation complaints were timely filed.

More details to follow.Continue Reading New Opinions: Inverse Condemnation Statute Of Limitations, Impact Fee Nexus

Yesterday, we filed an amicus brief in an appeal we wrote about earlier, In re Trustees Under the Will of the Estate of James Campbell, No. 30006. The appeal involves the nature of “Torrens” title and, in a broader sense, the nature of property rights themselves.

Hawaii is one of the few remaining states retaining its Torrens system of title registration (two others are Massachusetts and Minnesota). We call it “Land Court,” a system in which the State guarantees indefeasible title to the rights and interests reflected in the title register.  

In Campbell, the State of Hawaii claims that title to property on Oahu’s north shore which was registered and confirmed to the Campbell Estate by the Land Court in 1938, is subject to the State’s ownership of “all mineral and metallic mines of every kind or description on the property, including geothermal rights,” and is subject…

Continue Reading Amicus Brief In Hawaii Land Title And Public Trust Appeal

Comes news that the State Land Use Commission has reclassified a large portion of state-owned land in east Oahu from “urban” to “conservation.” See Ka Iwi shoreline area reclassified as conservation land (via Hawaii News Now) and Ka Iwi coast gets added protection (via the Honolulu Advertis…Honolulu Star-Advertiser). The reports state the “reclassification should make the development of the makai [seaward] area of the coastline ‘a remote possibility'” (quoting the governor’s press release).

The reclassification from urban to conservation means that instead of the City and County of Honolulu’s zoning regulating the land, the State Department of Land and Natural Resources will exercise exclusive regulatory control. (Land classified urban is zoned and primarily regulated by the counties, whereas under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-5, the DLNR exclusively regulates conservation-designated land.)

But we’re not quite sure what we’re missing here, since it seems the fact the…

Continue Reading You Take It, You Bought It

Appellate courts issue opinions and orders to decide cases. The opinions and orders in many cases get “published,” meaning that they end up in the bound reporters (the U.S., Federal, Federal Supplement, the official state reports, and in West’s Regional Reports, for example) and become precedential and set forth a rule of law governing future litigation.

Most appellate courts also issue opinions and orders that are not “published” in the sense referred to above, even though they are “published” meaning they are made available to the public. Generally speaking, these are cases presenting more routine issues. Unpublished decisions may be designated as unpublished opinions, memorandum opinions, summary disposition orders, “per curiam” opinions, or simply may bear the notation “Not For Publication.” The rules vary by jurisdiction on whether unpublished opinions are precedential, and even whether they can be cited in a brief. [Barista’s note: we are of the school believing…

Continue Reading “Unpublished” Opinion Round-Up