Zoning & Planning

Subscribe to Zoning & Planning via RSS

“Waikiki” means a lot of things to a lot of people. With its wall-to-wall high rises, it could be Las Vegas-by-the-Sea. Or the site of the most famous beach in Hawaii, if not the world. A place where impossibly tony shops and kitsch exist side-by-side. Where the “Hawaiian” bric-a-brac is imported from the Phillipines and China, and the beach sand is reputed to be Australian. A place to go, and a place to escape from. 

But whatever Waikiki might be, one thing is certain: it no longer has just two hotels as it once did, nor is it a sleepy agricultural backwater. It is the economic engine that drives Hawaii’s tourist economy, and the visitor destination, where one-third of our tourists end up. Even with these contradictions — or perhaps because of them — the ordinance which controls development within the Waikiki Special District requires consideration…

Continue Reading What Does “Waikiki” Mean? – Variances, Safety Valves, And A “Hawaiian Sense Of Place”

Here’s the amici brief we filed today in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. 15-330 (Oct. 16, 2015).

That’s the case in which the California Supreme Court upheld the city’s “affordable housing” requirement against a challenge which asserted that it was an exaction and thus should have been subject to the heightened scrutiny of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine of Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz. The California court disagreed, holding that because the ordinance did not require a developer to give up land, or money in lieu of land, it was a mere zoning restriction and subject to the “rational basis” test. 

CBIA filed a cert petition, and our brief (filed on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center and the Owners’ Counsel of America) agrees that the Court should review this case. We argue that even though …

Continue Reading Amici Brief In SCOTUS Affordable Housing Case: Prohibiting Homebuilders From Selling At Fair Market Value For 55 Years Is A Taking

Here are some upcoming events in which you may be interested, in chronological order:

…
Continue Reading Upcoming Events And CLE’s – Appellate, RLUIPA, Sharing Economy, And More

ALI-CLE-2016-masthead

Here’s the full agenda for the 2016 Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation / Condemnation 101 Conference, January 28-30, 2016, in Austin, Texas. 

Together with our friend and colleague Joe Waldo, we think we’re put together a pretty good program that covers a lot of ground. This is the first time the conference has been to Austin, and we’re starting off with a talk by Austin Mayor Steve Adler, who in his former life was an eminent domain lawyer. Other highlights:

  • Professor Ilya Somin will speak about his recently-published book in a segment entitled “The Impact of Kelo and the Limits of Eminent Domain.”
  • “Pipelines and Energy Corridors: Valuation Perspectives of Condemnors and Condemnees” with the lawyers on the front lines of one of the hottest topics in eminent domain law nationwide.
  • Retired Minnesota Supreme Court Justice Paul H. Anderson will give us his tips

…
Continue Reading It’s Here – 2016 ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference: Complete Agenda, Faculty, Registration Information

Check this out, a story in the September 28, 2015 edition of the New York Times, “Owner of Grand Central Sues Developer and City for $1.1 Billion Over Air Rights.”

Reminds us of this obscure Supreme Court case we heard about…

The Times reports that the current owner of Grand Central Terminal is, with the counsel of uberlawyers, suing New York City in federal court, alleging a taking and related. So what’s this all about (we thought this was “old, unhappy, far-off things, And battles long ago”)?

Apparently, the city granted a Grand Central neighbor permission to build a massive 1500 feet high office tower, and in doing so, took Grand Central’s property (its air rights) without compensation:

On Monday, Mr. Penson filed a $1.1 billion lawsuit in United States District Court in Manhattan that argued that the administration of Mayor Bill de Blasio, a Democrat…

Continue Reading Penn Central, Part Deux? A New Complaint Alleges A Taking Of Grand Central Air Rights

20150919_170343

We’re in Detroit and environs for the weekend, doing some scouting for an upcoming meeting of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law.

Had a Faygo Redpop at the site of Tiger Stadium in Corktown, dinner in Poletown, a fresh peach at the Saturday Eastern Market, and read this recent Sixth Circuit opinion reinstating the Insane Clown Posse‘s lawsuit against federal prosecutors over the DOJ’s inclusion of Juggalos on its gang list.  

Although things look like they’re on the uptick here, Detroit has a long way to go. For some insight on how they got this bad, check out Professor Kanner’s recent article, “Detroit and the Decline of Urban America,” 2013 Mich. State. L. Rev. 1547 (2013). 

Parsons v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, No. 14-1848 (6th Cir. Sep. 17, 2015)

Continue Reading Detroit Travelogue

Here’s the cert petition you knew was coming, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the California Supreme Court’s decision upholding the City of San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” requirement by applying rational basis review. The California court held the requirement was not an “exaction,” and was no more than a mere zoning regulation or price control. 

Here’s the Question Presented:

A San Jose, California, ordinance conditions housing development permits upon a requirement that developers sell 15% of their newly-built homes for less than market value to city-designated buyers. Alternatively, developers may pay the city a fee in lieu. The California Supreme Court held that, even where such legislatively-mandated conditions are unrelated to the developments on which they are imposed, they are subject only to rational basis review.

This raises an issue on which the state courts of last resort and federal circuit courts of appeal are split nationwide. The…

Continue Reading Cert Petition: Requirement That Developers Set Aside “Affordable” Units Is Subject To More Than Rational Basis Review

Those of you who are members of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law, tune in tomorrow, Friday, September 11, 2015 for the Land Use Committee’s monthly call.

It will feature two speakers, talking about the California Supreme Court’s recent decision upholding San Jose’s “workforce housing” requirement against a claim that it was an “exaction” and thus should have been subject to the nexus and rough proportionality requirements of Nollan, Dolan, and Koontz.

Law of Affordable/Workforce Housing Exactions and Set-Asides 

FREE Teleconference Sponsored by the Land Use Committee
Friday, September 11, 2015
2:00 p.m. EST
Dial-in 888-3967955
Passcode 797687#
 
Speakers: David L. Callies, FAICP, Kudo Professor of Law at the University of Hawaii

Tim Iglesias, Professor of Law at the University of San Francisco School of Law (Professor Iglesias organized and co-authored an amicus brief in support of the City of San Jose).…

Continue Reading Tomorrow: ABA Land Use Committee Talk On The California Workforce Housing “Exaction” Case

Here’s what we are reading today, eminent domain with a slightly offbeat theme:

…
Continue Reading Eminent Domain Round-Up: Aliens, Exotic Dancers, And Princesses

From the Ninth Circuit, a published opinion in a case challenging a Napa Valley city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749 (Sep. 3, 2015). Here’s a complete summary of the issues in the case, along with the Ninth Circuit merits and amici briefs. We’ve been following it because we filed an amicus brief in support of the property owner’s argument that it pleaded enough to get by a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. 

The Ninth Circuit didn’t agree, and affirmed the District Court’s dismissal. The panel concluded the case was ripe under Williamson County (an issue that seemed to occupy a lot of the judges’ time at oral arguments), but that the owner’s theory that “even if the taking is for a public purpose, the rent subsidy should be paid by the government if the rent is…

Continue Reading Where’s Palazzolo, Ninth Circuit? Owner Bought Property Subject To Regulation (Just Not These Regulations), So Has No Takings Claim