You’ll definitely want to check out the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit’s opinion in Makrilov v. City of Jersey City, No. 21-1786 (Aug. 16, 2022).

Not because it reaches any earth-shattering conclusions — the opinion unsurprisingly concluded that the city’s restricting (but not eliminating) short-term rentals (less than thirty days) was not a taking — but primarily because of the interesting concurring opinion.

So here’s the story. At one time, the city thought that renting residential property for less than thirty days was a good thing, believing that short-term renting “incentivize[d] investment and development in Jersey City.” Slip op. at 3. The city even adopted an ordinance affirmatively legalizing STRs as permitted accessory uses in residential zones. A property owner didn’t even need to obtain a permit, as long as the operation was small-scale (the owner did not have more than five units it rented).

But

Continue Reading Penn Central May Be A “Fuzzy” Test, But What Is A Court Doing Weighing The Factors?

Here’s a must-read from the Texas Court of Appeals (Second District).

In City of Grapevine v. Muns, No. 02-19-00257 (Dec. 23, 2021), 

Before 2018, the city’s 1982 zoning ordinance authorized “single-family detached dwellings” and didn’t say anything about short-term renting (short-term being defined as less than 30 days). The ordinance didn’t expressly authorize it, but it didn’t prohibit it either. The ordinance was one of those that say anything not expressly authorized is prohibited. Bed and breakfast operations were recognized in a 2000 amendment, but these operations require, among other things, that the owner live on-site.

But after the introduction of platforms such as AirBnB and VRBO, the short-term market “exploded” and the usual complaints from neighborhood residents followed. Slip op. at 6 (“criminal mischief, domestic disputes, parking violations, alarm calls, and noise disturbances”). Next came studies, public hearings, and the city’s assertion that it didn’t really need to

Continue Reading Tex App: “Property” Includes Right To Rent It Out – City’s Short-Term Ban May Be A Taking

All the topics you want to know about, presented by top-notch faculty from across the nation. Sessions include:

  • Keynote: Do Animals Have Property Rights?
  • Did the Supreme Court Signal a New Direction in Property Rights in Cedar Point Nursery?
  • Maximizing Relocation Benefits: Understanding the Law and Regulations to Ensure Fairness
  • Challenging Public Use: Lessons From a 67-Day Trial
  • COVID Takings
  • Property Rights as Civil Rights
  • Eminent Domain National Update
  • Federal Court and the Daubert Challenge: How to Prepare
  • How to Position Your Client for the Fallout When Projects Don’t Get Built
  • Rural Broadband and the Emerging Constitutional Challenges
  • Are Precondemnation Entry Statutes Still Valid After Cedar Point Nursery?
  • How Condemnor and Property Owners’ Counsel Prepare the Battlefield
  • How Will the Trillion Dollar Infrastructure Bill Impact Your Practice?
  • Ethics
  • …and more, including a full slate of networking and social events!

We’ve sold out the last few years, so don’t Continue Reading Registration Open Now: ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Jan 26-29, 2022, Scottsdale

Our thanks to our friends and colleagues at the ABA Section of Real Property, Probate & Trust Section’s Land Use and Environmental Group for inviting us to a discussion of the latest and greatest decisions of interest.

We only had an hour together, so naturally could not cover everything of interest (indeed, we reserved a big discussion of the biggest item, the Supreme Court’s decision in Cedar Point, assuming that the Group will schedule a full session on that decision alone). So here is our curated list of what we think are the most interesting recent decisions in areas of interest to the Group:


Continue Reading Links From Today’s ABA RPTE Session

IMG_20180720_152126_1

A short, land-usey one today, from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In Styller v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. SJC-12901 (June 7, 2021), the court held that the plaintiff’s “occasional” use of a home to rent to others short-term is not a legal primary use of property in a “single residence’ zoning district.

The facts were not in dispute:

  • 5,000 sf, five bedroom, single-family home, three acres of land
  • “single-residence” zoning district
  • owner rented premises 13 times, totaling 65 days
  • rentals were between 2 and 15 days
  • most were 5 days or less
  • use during the rentals: reunions, board meetings, business retreats,

The town cited the owner, and the Land Court agreed that these uses were illegal “additional” uses because they constituted unauthorized use either as a boarding house or a tourist home. 

The owner appealed, and the SJC took over the case. The owner argued that these uses

Continue Reading Euclid Lives! Mass SJC: “Short-Term” Rental Is Not A Permissible Primary Use In A Residential Zone Because Not Of “Residential Character”

IMG_20180720_152126_1

A short, land-usey one today, from the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. In Styller v. Zoning Board of Appeals, No. SJC-12901 (June 7, 2021), the court held that the plaintiff’s “occasional” use of a home to rent to others short-term is not a legal primary use of property in a “single residence’ zoning district.

The facts were not in dispute:

  • 5,000 sf, five bedroom, single-family home, three acres of land
  • “single-residence” zoning district
  • owner rented premises 13 times, totaling 65 days
  • rentals were between 2 and 15 days
  • most were 5 days or less
  • use during the rentals: reunions, board meetings, business retreats,

The town cited the owner, and the Land Court agreed that these uses were illegal “additional” uses because they constituted unauthorized use either as a boarding house or a tourist home. 

The owner appealed, and the SJC took over the case. The owner argued that these uses

Continue Reading Euclid Lives! Mass SJC: “Short-Term” Rentals Is Not A Permissible Primary Use In A Residential Zone Because Not Of “Residential Character”

We’re hoping that someone can explain the Florida District Court of Appeal’s recent opinion in Bondar v. Town of Jupiter Inlet Colony, No. 4D19-2118 (May 5, 2021) in a way that makes sense other than the old apocryphal tale of “I don’t know why we do things this way, except that we’ve always done things this way.”

Before we get to the details, a slight detour. This is another one of those cases about substantive due process. Now don’t get us started on that one — we get that it might seem odd to suggest that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause limits the government’s power beyond requiring fair procedures. After all, the words are right there in the text: “nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” But work with us here: we’ve always viewed the phrase much

Continue Reading Fla App Doubles Down On That Weird Property Isn’t “Property” Thing

UrbanLawyer.v.50.1 articles

The latest issue of The Urban Lawyer, the scholarly law journal of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law (our Section) has been published. Takings mavens are going to like this one:

  • William W. Wade, Love Terminal: A Tale of Two Theoriesour friend and colleague Bill’s final work.
  • Kenneth Stahl, Home Rule & State Preemption of Local Land Use Control – land users and muni lawyers: read this.
  • Eric Lynch, Fifth Amendment on Fifth Avenue: New York City Taxicab Medallions App-Dispatch Services & Just Compensation in Regulatory Takings – a former student of ours and now colleague, on sharing economy takings; this article began life as his final paper for our class.
  • Robert Freilich, et al., The California Coastal Commission & Beach Access: The Necessity for Overriding City & County Ordinances Banning the Use of Short-Term Vacation Rentals in the Coastal Zone


Continue Reading Latest Issue Of The Urban Lawyer: Two Takings Theories, Home Rule, Rideshare Takings, And Vacation Rentals In The Coastal Zone

As expected, a quick decision and opinion from the U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii, after yesterday’s hearing on the plaintiff’s request for extraordinary preliminary relief (a TRO and PI) in the case challenging the Hawaii Governor’s imposition of a 14-day self-quarantine on all travelers inbound to Hawaii (and other emergency orders, although the TRO request was limited to the quarantine).

When the opinion starts this way, you know which way it is headed:

Claiming that there is no emergency in Hawai‘i or the United States, Plaintiffs seek temporary injunctive relief enjoining Defendant from enforcing the 14-day quarantine requirements of the Emergency Proclamations and an order to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not issue.

Op. at 1-2 (footnote omitted). I’m not sure that’s exactly what the plaintiffs were arguing (“no emergency” anywhere), but you get the drift.

The Governor challenged the plaintiffs’ standing (they have not

Continue Reading Federal Court Denies TRO: Hawaii Gov’s Coronavirus Travel Quarantine Doesn’t Stop Anyone From Coming To Hawaii

Please plan on joining us on Wednesday, July 22, 2020, at 1pm ET (10am PT) for a long-form program on “Emergency and Police Power: Property Claims in Times of Crisis.”

Our speakers are Professors Craig Konnoth (Colorado) and John Nolon (Pace), and one of the lawyers on the forefront of the nationwide legal challenges, Harmeet Dhillon (San Francisco). I’ll be moderating, along with Professor Sarah Adams-Schoen (Oregon).

Here’s the program description:

On the eve of the centennial of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (US 1922), this panel will revisit the question: How far can the police power be stretched to protect the public against dangers? The panel will evaluate the scope of state and local authority to respond to emergencies and the implications for private property rights—asking, how far is too far? What is the scope of implied limitations on private property rights in times of crisis? When

Continue Reading July 22, 2020: “Emergency and Police Power: Property Claims in Times of Crisis” (ABA Webinar)