Zoning & Planning

Subscribe to Zoning & Planning via RSS

We’re in Chicago this week participating in the ABA Annual Meeting. While we really are looking forward to a slate of thrilling committee meetings, what we’re really anticipating is the CLE programming. Here are what we think are the highlights:

  • Looming Land Use Constitutional Issues –  Friday, July 31, 2:45 – 4:15 pm, Westin Chicago River North Grand Ballroom B –  Four hot land use issues: land use aspects of medical marijuana legislation; takings and exactions in San Francisco’s requirement for owners to pay departing tenants huge sums; Horne and takingsNew Jersey’s dune program. With Tony Della Pelle and Stephen Schwartz (one of the counsel for the Hornes), among others. 
  • The 2014 Supreme Court Term in Review – Friday, July 31, 2015, 10am – noon, Westin Chicago River North Promenade Ballroom C – “This panel of noted legal professionals, academics and journalists provides an overview of the Supreme Court

…
Continue Reading ABA Annual Meeting Programming: Takings, Land Use, Supreme Court, Election Law, Appellate Traps

If you need CLE credits, you are in luck. There’s a plethora of upcoming programs that may be of interest to readers. 

First, the ones we’re involved with:

  • The Takings Issue – August 10, 2015, 1 – 2pm ET (webinar) – from the International Municipal Lawyers Association. We’re joining Professors Dan Mandelker and John Echeverria, and land use lawyer Michael Giairno, to talk takings. “Two titans of takings, who just happen to have profoundly opposing views of the world, have graciously agreed to discuss the latest developments and spar. This will be the Great Debate of 2015.” Sounds like fun, no? Registration free for IMLA members, $99 for everyone else. More information, including registration, here. 
  • Is Sharing Really Caring? The Law of Transportation Sharing: Uber, Lyft, and the Sharing Economy – July 30, 2015, 2:15-3:45pm CT (in-person) –  at the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago. We’re moderating a session

…
Continue Reading Mark Your Calendars For Upcoming Events: Takings, Sharing Economy, Fair Housing, etc.

We’ve covered this topic before (see here, here, and here), but we haven’t heard much about it lately. But thanks to this new article by colleague Dwight H. Merriam, we can get back up to speed.

In “Eminent Domain for Underwater Mortgages: Already on the Way to the Bottom of the Sea of Bad Ideas,” from the Virginia State Bar’s Real Property Section’s journal, The Fee Simple (Spring 2015), Dwight discusses “the foreclosure crisis and how so many homeowners became victims of bad lending practices and a deep economic recession. Many are stuck in their homes, which are underwater with a value far below what was owed on them.” The article explores the question: can eminent domain bail out underwater mortgages?

Short answer: no.

To learn more, click here to view the article.

And what’s the latest that Richmond, California, which was leading the…

Continue Reading New Article: “Eminent Domain for Underwater Mortgages: Already on the Way to the Bottom of the Sea of Bad Ideas”

There’s nothing new in the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. A138301 (July 7, 2015), which is probably why the court didn’t designate it for publication. 

But read it anyway, since there’s some interesting bits. Nothing in the details, mind you, but in the overall vibe of the opinion. 

It’s a mobile home rent control case, so you shouldn’t expect much from a California court, and this decision certainly meets those low expectations: it goes through the usual analysis dealing with the park owner’s argument that the city — at the northern end of the Napa Valley — didn’t agree to increase the rent to $625 per month from the $471 average which tenants were paying. The city permitted an increase of only $60, so the owner sued, asserting among other things that the failure to increase the rent to $625 was…

Continue Reading Cal App: No Takings Claim, Because Property Owner Makes “Enough”

LUI header

The Land Use Institute, a program that for many years has been planned by co-chairs Frank Schnidman and Gideon Kanner, has found a new home with the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law as the main sponsor. It also has a new Planning co-chair, Dean Patty Salkin of Touro Law School, who has stepped in for Professor Kanner.

This program is designed for attorneys, professional planners, and government officials involved in land use planning, zoning, permitting, property development, conservation and environmental protection, and related litigation. It not only addresses and analyzes the state-of-the-art efforts by government to manage land use and development, but also presents the key issues faced by property owners and developers in obtaining necessary governmental approvals.

This year, the one-day program is being held in conjunction with the ABA Annual Meeting in Chicago. It will be held on Thursday, July 30, 2015…

Continue Reading Land Use Institute: Planning, Regulation, Litigation, Eminent Domain, and Compensation – 31st Annual Conference, Chicago, July 30, 2015

We were involved with this issue in the days leading up to the initiative election, and we represent an amicus party in this case, so we will post the court’s order without comment.

The title of this post tells you what you want to know. 

Order Determining that the County of Maui GMO Ordinance is Preempted and Exceeds the County’s Authorit…

Related articles
Cal Supreme Court: Affordable Housing Exaction Subject Only To Rational Basis Review
Cal App: Mandamus Challenge To Validity Of Govt Action Must Include Takings Claim

Continue Reading Federal Court: Maui County GMO Regulation Ordinance Preempted by Federal And State Law

131996

In this Order, the Supreme Court has granted the cert petition in the case we’ve been following about the anti-eminent domain sign in Norfolk, Virginia. The Court vacated the Fourth Circuit judgment and sent the case back down for consideration in light of the recent ruling in Reed v. Town of Gilbert. Here’s the text of the Order:

CENTRAL RADIO COMPANY, ET AL. V. NORFOLK, VA

The motion of Six Law Professors, et al. for leave to file a brief as amici curiae is granted. The motion of Neighborhood Enterprises, Inc., et al. for leave to file a brief as amici Curiae is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit for further consideration in light of Reed v. Town of Gilbert, 576 U. S.

Continue Reading SCOTUS GVR’s Anti-Eminent Domain Sign Case

Apa_2015_planning_law_review

On Wednesday, July 1, 2015, the American Planning Association is putting on the 2015 Planning Law Review, a program highlighting the most important and topical cases decided by the courts recently. Here’s the program description:

Planning feels the impact of decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court, federal district courts, and state courts. How will their rulings affect you? Get a briefing on the year’s legal developments, from First Amendment issues to environmental actions, housing, and equal access. Presenters also will discuss major legislative initiatives and APA’s amicus filings. Join in a lively, informative program you and your staff, colleagues, and officials won’t want to miss. This program is also suitable for planning commissioners.

Joining me on the faculty are Jason Jordan, Director, Policy and Communications, American Planning Association (Moderator); Nancy Ellen Stroud, Lewis, Stroud & Deutsch; John M. Baker, Greene Espel; and John Echeverria, Professor of…

Continue Reading Upcoming APA Webinar: 2015 Planning Law Review

In all of today’s excitement about the Court’s opinions in Horne v. Dep’t of Agriculture, No. 14-275, the “raisin takings” case which we posted about earlier, we almost lost sight of the other property rights decision issued by the Court, City of Los Angeles v. Patel, No.13-1175 (June 22, 2015). 

The case did not present takings, land use, or eminent domain issues, but we’ve been following along with interest nonetheless, because at stake was the right of a Los Angeles hotel owner to require the police to obtain a warrant before he allowed inspection of the hotel’s guest register. The Court’s majority said yes, hotel owners really do need the opportunity to make the police get a warrant before the police can force the hotel to open up its records.

The opinion by Justice Sotomayor and joined by Justices Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, didn’t talk about property…

Continue Reading Today’s Other Supreme Court Property Rights Decision

Update: here’s more Horne talk, in addition to our own initial thoughts in the above video and this post (“Magna Raisins: 8-1 SCOTUS Says There’s A Taking, But Not All Agree On Remedy“):

…
Continue Reading Raisin Round-Up