Zoning and Land Use Planning
|
|
- Imogene Catherine Davidson
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 Alan C. Weinstein* and Brian W. Blaesser** The Supreme Court's 2012 Takings Cases The U.S. Supreme Court has three cases on its docket this term that explore the meaning of the fth amendment's prohibition on the taking of private property without payment of just compensation. Of the three, by far the most relevant to real estate development and land use regulation and also the most intriguing is Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Dist., 1 an exactions case from the Florida Supreme Court, which was argued on January 15, We discuss this case at some length below, but start with brief discussions of the other two cases: Arkansas Game and Fish Commission v. U.S., 2 which the Court decided on December 4th, and Horne v. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 3 for which the Court granted certiorari on December 5. The Horne case, involving a federal marketing program for raisins, has no relevance to real estate concerns. Brie y, the case involves whether a takings challenge to the program's reserve tonnage requirement 4 brought by these particular plainti s, who claim they are not properly governed by the program, may be brought in federal district court rather * Alan C. Weinstein holds a joint faculty appointment at Cleveland State University's Colleges of Law and Urban A airs. He is also the coauthor of FEDERAL LAND USE LAW & LITIGATION for West. ** Brian W. Blaesser is a partner and heads the Land Use and Real Estate Development Group in the Boston o ce of the rm of Robinson & Cole LLP. He is the author of DISCRETIONARY LAND USE CONTROLS: AVOIDING INVITATIONS TO ABUSES OF DISCRETION and the coauthor of FEDERAL LAND USE LAW & LITIGATION for West. 1 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). 2 Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 511, 75 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1417 (2012). 3 Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 673 F.3d 1071 (9th Cir. 2012), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 638 (2012). 4 Under the reserve tonnage requirement, some of the annual raisin crop must be held in reserve and sold only in markets where competition does not exist, such as school-lunch programs, with the proceeds used 512 Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring 2013
2 than the Court of Federal Claims as required by the statute under which the program is enforced. Of more relevance to readers of this journal, is Arkansas Game and Fish Commission. The Commission sued the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, alleging that periodic releases of water from an upstream dam caused recurring ooding that ultimately destroyed woodlands in a 23,000 acre Wildlife Management Area owned by the Commission, and therefore the Corps had taken its property without just compensation. The Court of Federal Claims ruled that the United States had taken a temporary owage easement over the Commission's property and awarded the Commission $5,778, in damages. 5 On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed in a split decision, 6 with the majority concluding there was no taking because the ooding, while recurring, was temporary rather than permanent, and that the Corps did not intend to in ict permanent ooding or damage. The ooding at issue here occurred numerous times between 1993 and 2000 when the Corps deviated from its planned releases of water from a dam 115 miles upstream from the Commission's property. Those deviations, made at the request of farmers, led to water being released at a slower rate than normal, which provided downstream farmers with a longer harvest season. But slowing the releases meant that more water than normal remained behind the dam, and so the period of time when the water releases occurred had to be extended. And, while slower but longer releases of water bene tted farmers, it resulted in recurring ooding that harmed the woodlands owned by the Commission. After the Commission objected to the Corps' deviations in water releases multiple times between 1993 and 2000, the Corps examined the e ect of the deviations on the Commissions' woodlands and, in 2001, decided not to deviate from its water release plan in the future. In 2005, the Commission sued, claiming that the cumulative impact of the ooding incidents had both destroyed timber and to pay the costs of running the reserve tonnage program. The plainti s claim that this is a taking of their property without just compensation. 5 Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. U.S., 87 Fed. Cl. 594 (2009), rev'd, 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 132 S. Ct. 1856, 182 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2012) and rev'd and remanded, 133 S. Ct. 511, 75 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1417 (2012). 6 Arkansas Game & Fish Com'n v. U.S., 637 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), cert. granted, 132 S. Ct. 1856, 182 L. Ed. 2d 641 (2012) and rev'd and remanded, 133 S. Ct. 511, 75 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1417 (2012). Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring
3 Real Estate Law Journal [Vol. 41:4 2013] substantially changed the character of the terrain, necessitating costly reclamation measures. 7 The question for the Supreme Court in this case was whether the Federal Circuit majority had gotten it right in reversing the Court of Claims award to the Commission on the ground that cases involving ooding and [ owage] easements 8 were a categorical exception to the general rule of the Court's First English 9 decision that temporary government action may give rise to a takings claim if permanent action of the same character would constitute a taking. Whether temporary ooding caused by government action can ever give rise to a takings claim, of course, is a question that goes well beyond the unique facts in this case. Writing for a unanimous court, 10 Justice Ginsburg, declined the government's invitation to carve out a categorical takings exemption for temporary ooding, and ruled that government-induced ooding temporary in duration gains no automatic exemption from Takings Clause inspection. 11 Noting that takings claims based on temporary ooding should be assessed by a case-speci c factual inquiry, 12 Justice Ginsburg set out the factors that courts should consider in such cases: (1) the duration of the ooding, (2) the degree to which the invasion is intended or is the foreseeable result of authorized government action, (3) the character of the land at issue and the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations regarding the land's use, and (4) the severity of the interference. 13 Having ruled that temporary ooding could support a tak- 7 Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. U.S., 133 S. Ct. 511, , 75 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1417 (2012). 8 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 637 F.3d at First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, Cal., 482 U.S. 304, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 2d 250, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1001, 17 Envtl. L. Rep (1987). 10 Justice Kagan did not participate in the case due to her prior involvement with the matter as Solicitor General. 11 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 133 S.Ct. at Id. citing Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 435 n.12, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1849 (1982). 13 Id., citing Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 618, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 150 L. Ed. 2d 592, 52 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1609, 32 Envtl. L. Rep (2001) and Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, , 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 11 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1801, 8 Envtl. L. Rep (1978). 514 Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring 2013
4 ings claim, the Court reversed and remanded, noting that because the Federal Circuit had based its reversal of the Court of Claims entirely on there being no takings claim for a temporary ooding, it had not addressed several challenges the government had raised to the trial court's award of damages. 14 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission clari ed that government-induced temporary ooding can give rise to a takings challenge and speci ed the factors courts should consider in considering such challenges. This approach is best seen as a variant of Penn Central s ad-hoc factual inquiry tailored to t the factual considerations that arise in a ooding case. While Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is certainly an important case, its reach is quite circumscribed. In contrast, the Court's third takings case this term, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 15 potentially has a far-reaching e ect. Koontz involves a challenge to a development exaction. Local governments frequently require such exactions, or attach other conditions, as a prerequisite to development approvals in an e ort to address the environmental impacts of the development or the need for new infrastructure created by the development project. These most frequently take the form of either exactions such as easement dedication requirements or required cash payments in the form of fees-in-lieu of dedication requirements or development impact fees. 16 The Court has ruled previously in two cases involving exactions: Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 17 and 14 Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, 133 S.Ct. at 523. The government had challenged several of the trial court's ndings, including those related to causation, foreseeability, sustainability and the amount of the damage award. 15 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). 16 See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:38 to 3:42 (2012); 1 James A. Kushner, Subdivision Law and Growth Management, 6:31 (2nd ed. 2012); James C. Nicholas, Arthur C. Nelson & Julian C. Juergensmeyer, A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees (1991). 17 Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1073, 17 Envtl. L. Rep (1987). Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring
5 Real Estate Law Journal [Vol. 41:4 2013] Dolan v. City of Tigard. 18 These cases established the socalled Nollan/Dolan test that applies a distinctive takings framework to exaction claims. Under that framework, the government defendant has the burden of proving that the exaction it seeks to impose is su ciently related to a governmental interest and proportionate to the problems caused by the plainti developer's or landowner's proposed development. In the language of the Nollan/Dolan rulings, that means that the exaction bears both an essential nexus to the governmental interest and rough proportionality to the development's projected impacts. 19 This approach is often referred to as the Nollan/Dolan Dual Nexus test. We note two interesting aspects of the Nollan/Dolan approach. First, it does not focus on the diminution in value of the plainti 's property, which is the hallmark of both the Lucas per se takings rule for a regulation that leaves an owner with no economically viable use, 20 and the Penn Central balancing test, which requires a weighing of three principal factors economic impact, interference with distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. 21 So, in that way, the Nollan/ Dolan Dual Nexus test resembles the Court's per se test for permanent physical invasions or occupations announced in the Loretto case. 22 That makes sense because exactions when they are in the form of dedication of land requirements involve the same loss of the rights to exclusive possession and to exclude others as occurs with permanent physical invasions or occupations. The second interesting aspect of the Nollan/Dolan ap- 18 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304, 38 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1769, 24 Envtl. L. Rep (1994). 19 See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:38 to 3:42 (2012). 20 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1897, 22 Envtl. L. Rep (1992). See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:33 (2012). 21 Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S. Ct. 2646, 57 L. Ed. 2d 631, 11 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1801, 8 Envtl. L. Rep (1978). See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:34 to 3:37 (2012). 22 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1849 (1982).). See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:32 (2012). 516 Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring 2013
6 proach is that it is the sole remaining vestige of the Court's applying substantive due process analysis in the takings context. Readers will recall that the Court introduced a due process element in takings in Agins v. Tiburon, 23 when it announced that a taking occurs if a regulation either deprived an owner of all economically viable use or failed to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. But 25 years after Agins, inlingle v. Chevron, 24 the Court rejected Agins and announced that the substantially advances a legitimate governmental interest test was not appropriate for determining whether a regulation e ects a talking under the Fifth Amendment. 25 So, with these preliminary comments as background, what happened in Koontz and why did the Court take this case? Back in the 1990's, Mr. Koontz, senior, since deceased, wanted to build a shopping mall on 3.7 acres of a 14.2-acre lot. Because the wetlands, and actually most of the lot, were part of a designated riparian habitat protection zone in fact, so was most of the lot and Mr. Koontz's plans called for dredging and lling those wetlands, he needed to obtain a permit from the St. John's River Water Management District. 26 Because Florida law protects wetlands, and requires mitigation for the loss of any wetlands, Mr. Koontz stated in his development application, that he would mitigate the loss of 3.4 acres of wetlands plus about 1/3 acre of protected uplands by dedicating a conservation easement on the remaining 10.5 acres of the property that would prohibit any further development. 27 That sounds reasonable, right? Well, the problem is that the District's guidelines implementing Florida's wetlands mitigation law requires a 10:1 mitigation 23 Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S. Ct. 2138, 65 L. Ed. 2d 106, 14 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1555, 10 Envtl. L. Rep (1980) (abrogated by, Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S. Ct. 2074, 161 L. Ed. 2d 876, 35 Envtl. L. Rep (2005)). See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:09 (2012). 24 Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 125 S. Ct. 2074, 161 L. Ed. 2d 876, 35 Envtl. L. Rep (2005). 25 See generally, Brian W. Blaesser & Alan C. Weinstein, Federal Land Use Law & Litigation, 3:26 (2012). 26 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). 27 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring
7 Real Estate Law Journal [Vol. 41:4 2013] ratio for loss of wetlands. 28 In other words, if you want to destroy an acre of wetlands, you need to insure that 10 acres of existing wetlands are preserved. So, Mr. Koontz's o er was about a 3:1 ratio, rather than a 10:1 ratio. Based on that o er, the District could have simply denied Mr. Koontz's application. Instead, the District identi ed several possible exactions that, if accepted by Mr. Koontz, would have allowed the development to proceed and discussed these informally with Mr. Koontz. For example, the District said it was willing to grant the development permit on the condition that Koontz perform o site mitigation by agreeing to plug ditches, replace damaged culverts, or perform some equivalent mitigating act on other properties within the river's drainage area. Alternatively, the District told Mr. Koontz that he could avoid doing any o -site wetlands mitigation by reducing the size of his project to the point where the destruction of protected territory would be limited to one acre. But Mr. Koontz, refused to consider those proposals, and the government ultimately denied the development request outright. 29 Normally, a developer in this situation would have sought an administrative appeal of the District's denial, perhaps sought a variance, etc. But Mr. Koontz sued instead, and here is where things get interesting. Mr. Koontz claimed that the District had proposed conditions that amounted to an unconstitutional taking for which compensation would be due. Note that these were not conditions that the District actually had imposed on Mr. Koontz, but rather conditions that the District merely had proposed during informal discussions. At that point, under the Court's existing takings jurisprudence, Mr. Koontz faced the following di culties in successfully asserting a takings claim based on the District's denial of his application. There was no Loretto claim based on physical invasion/occupation because he still exclusively owned all of his land. Also, because he still could develop his land the District said he could develop on one acre if he placed a conservation easement on the rest of the property there was no claim for deprivation of all economic use under Lucas. Finally, it would be unlikely that he could prevail on a Penn 28 Timothy M. Mulvaney, Proposed Exactions, 26 J. Land Use 279, 293 n St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220, 1224 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). 518 Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring 2013
8 Central takings claim because his property could be found to still have some value as measured by what his reasonable investment-backed expectations could be for a parcel that is almost entirely wetlands. That leaves a challenge of the proposed exaction as unconstitutional under the Nollan/ Dolan test for exactions. 30 This last takings argument is critical to understanding the viewpoint of the plainti now Mr. Koontz junior and his legal counsel, which is the Paci c Legal Foundation, a property-rights advocate. The Foundation's briefs in this case describe the government as an entity that whittles away at property rights with strict environmental regulations that amount to extortion and are implemented by guidelines that are unnecessary and excessive and result in a land grab while also requiring payment for unnecessary public improvements on government land. 31 Whether one views government environmental and land use regulations as extortion or often excessive or unfair, one way to curb such outcomes is through judicial expansion of protection for property rights both doctrinally and through heightened judicial scrutiny. That is what this case is all about. In fact, the property rights movement has successfully enhanced the protection of property rights through a series of victories beginning in 1982 with Loretto, 32 and continuing for the next two decades with First English, 33 Nollan, 34 Lu- 30 He could not claim a taking on the ground that the exaction requirement fails to substantially advance a legitimate state interest because the Court ruled in Lingle that a claim like that is properly brought under the Due Process clause and not the Takings clause. 31 Koontz v. St. John's Water Management District, Petitioner's Brief on the Merits. 32 Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419, 102 S. Ct. 3164, 73 L. Ed. 2d 868, 8 Media L. Rep. (BNA) 1849 (1982) (establishing per se takings test for permanent physical invasion or occupation). 33 First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. Los Angeles County, Cal., 482 U.S. 304, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 2d 250, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1001, 17 Envtl. L. Rep (1987) (establishing that the fth amendment requires compensation as the remedy for all takings, whether permanent or temporary). 34 Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n, 483 U.S. 825, 107 S. Ct. 3141, 97 L. Ed. 2d 677, 26 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1073, 17 Envtl. L. Rep (1987) (establishing essential nexus requirement for land dedication exactions). Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring
9 Real Estate Law Journal [Vol. 41:4 2013] cas, 35 Dolan, 36 Del Monte Dunes 37 and Palazzolo. 38 But the property rights position did not prevail in the Tahoe-Sierra 39 case in 2002, where the Court rejected a claim that any delay in granting a land-use approval should be considered a compensable temporary taking, and, more famously, in the Kelo 40 case in 2005, where a majority ruled that economic development was a proper public purpose for the exercise of eminent domain. In this case, after remand of an earlier ruling, Koontz prevailed both at trial and in an intermediate court of appeal on the theory that the Nollan/Dolan Dual Nexus test (1) applies to exactions beyond those that require public occupation of or access to private land, and (2) is applicable at the point in time when an exaction is proposed but not yet imposed. 41 But the Florida Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Nollan/Dolan does not apply to exactions that do not involve the dedication of land and neither does it apply to proposed exactions. The majority argued that this ruling had two major advantages over a rule that would potentially allow compensation for proposed exactions. First, if a property 35 Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798, 34 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1897, 22 Envtl. L. Rep (1992) (establishing per se takings test for regulations that deny owner of all economically viable use). 36 Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 114 S. Ct. 2309, 129 L. Ed. 2d 304, 38 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1769, 24 Envtl. L. Rep (1994) (establishing rough proportionality requirement for land dedication exactions). 37 City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687, 119 S. Ct. 1624, 143 L. Ed. 2d 882, 48 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1513, 29 Envtl. L. Rep (1999)(approving jury's award of compensation based on city's repeated denials of applications for development approval). 38 Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 121 S. Ct. 2448, 150 L. Ed. 2d 592, 52 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1609, 32 Envtl. L. Rep (2001) (establishing that the fact that a takings claim is not barred by the fact that the property owner at the time of acquisition of the subject property had notice of the challenged regulation restricting the use of that property). 39 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 L. Ed. 2d 517, 54 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1129, 32 Envtl. L. Rep , 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 681 (2002). 40 Kelo, et. al. v. City of New London, Conn., 545 U.S. 469, 125 S. Ct. 2655, 162 L. Ed. 2d 439, 60 Env't. Rep. Cas. (BNA) 1769, 35 Envtl. L. Rep , 10 A.L.R. Fed. 2d 733 (2005). 41 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 5 So. 3d 8 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009), decision quashed, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). 520 Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring 2013
10 owner could le takings claims any time that unsuccessful negotiations with a government body led to a permit denial, then land use regulation would become prohibitively expensive due to the costs of litigation. Second, governments would respond to this risk of litigation by simply issuing outright denials rather than risk the crushing costs of litigation if they entered into negotiations about the conditions under which development could occur. 42 There is understandable appeal to the Foundation's argument to the Supreme Court. In other words, why should Developer A, who refuses to be extorted and declines to accept the conditions, not be able to take advantage of the heightened scrutiny he gets with a Nollan/Dolan claim if he challenges the proposed conditions? Why should he have to go through the time, cost and nancial risk of an entire regulatory process and reach a nal deal in other words, be issued a permit subject to one or more speci ed conditions in order to use Nollan/Dolan to challenge the fairness of the conditions imposed? Particularly in the current economy, the uncertainty of potential exactions being imposed on an ad hoc basis through the development approval process presents a major obstacle to real estate development. Nevertheless, there are several reasons from the Supreme Court's takings jurisprudence why the Court will probably reject the claim that Nollan/Dolan should apply to proposed conditions. First, where conditions have only been proposed, it is not clear what property interest has been taken from the applicant that can be protected by the Takings Clause. Koontz had a permit application denied. If Koontz wanted to challenge that as a taking based on diminution in the value of his property because his development plan has been rejected he could do so under Penn Central. But it is di cult to see how the Court will nd a property interest that has been taken that would trigger a Nollan/Dolan analysis. Compare that to a permit approval with a condition attached. In that case, the applicant can say to the Court: If you examine the permit approval, you will see precisely what property interest is being taken from me as a condition of the approval. The taking of that interest does not meet the Nollan/Dolan Dual Nexus test. Second, allowing a takings claim for proposed conditions 42 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220, 1230 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring
11 Real Estate Law Journal [Vol. 41:4 2013] would con ict with the Court's long-standing ripeness and nality requirements as developed through a series of decisions beginning with Williamson County Regional Planning Com'n v. Hamilton Bank. 43 In fact, the two concurring Justices in the Florida Supreme Court argued that Koontz's claim was unripe because, given the factual posture of the case; Florida law required the landowner to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing a regulatory taking action. 44 What makes this case intriguing is that Justice Scalia, the strongest defender of property rights on the Court, dissented to the Court's denial of certiorari in Lambert v. San Francisco, 45 a 2000 case that raised the same issue as Koontz: whether a proposed condition could give rise to a takings claim. Lambert involved a San Francisco regulatory program that sought to mitigate the e ects of developers' converting inexpensive single-room occupancy residential units into much pricier accommodations for the city's booming tourist industry. Under that program, permission to convert the residential units to tourist accommodations was conditioned on the developer providing either a one-to-one replacement or paying for the cost of a replacement unit for each residential unit converted to tourist use. When negotiations between the developer and the city over the amount the developer should pay for replacement units failed, the city denied the permit for the proposed conversion and the developer sued, claiming that the denial was a taking that should be decided by using Nollan/Dolan to test the constitutionality of the payment for providing replacement units that the city had proposed. 46 Although the Court declined to accept the case, Justice Scalia, joined by Justices Thomas and Kennedy, authored a 43 Williamson County Regional Planning Com'n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S. Ct. 3108, 87 L. Ed. 2d 126 (1985). 44 St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220, (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012). 45 Lambert v. City and County of San Francisco, 529 U.S. 1045, 120 S. Ct. 1549, 146 L. Ed. 2d 360 (2000). 46 Id. 120 S.Ct at That claim had been rejected by the Court of Appeals, which is the decision for which review was sought at the Supreme Court after the California Supreme Court declined review. Lambert v. City & County of San Francisco, 67 Cal. Rptr. 2d 562 (App. 1st Dist. 1997), review granted and opinion superseded, 71 Cal. Rptr. 2d 215, 950 P.2d 59 (Cal. 1998) and review dismissed, cause remanded, 87 Cal. Rptr. 2d 412, 981 P.2d 41 (Cal. 1999). 522 Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring 2013
12 dissent from the denial of certiorari that brie y discussed precisely the same issue raised in Koontz: the fact that the [California] court's refusal to apply Nollan and Dolan might rest upon the distinction that it drew between the grant of a permit subject to an unlawful condition and the denial of a permit when an unlawful condition is not met. 47 Justice Scalia's dissent however, suggests that he may be reluctant to extend Nollan/Dolan to proposed exactions. Justice Scalia acknowledged that there were merits on both sides of the question: rst arguing that [t]here is no apparent reason why the phrasing of an extortionate demand as a condition precedent rather than as a condition subsequent should make a di erence; and then recognizing that [i]t is undeniable, on the other hand, that the subject of any supposed taking is far from clear. He later identi ed this latter concern as at least a plausible one justifying the California court's declining to apply Nollan/Dolan to the city's proposed condition for permit approval. At oral argument, Justice Scalia continued to express strong doubts about the wisdom of extending Nollan/Dolan to a proposed exaction. The following exchange between counsel for the Water Management District underscores this point: Counsel: Well, Justice Scalia, there are there is another problem with the Nollan and Dolan claim in this case, which is it s hard to see how you can have an exactions takings claim when nothing has ever actually been exacted Justice Scalia: Now, that is a problem. (Laughter). 48 The fact that Justice Scalia, the Court s leading defender of property rights, expressed such skepticism at oral argument about the plainti s claim suggests that a majority of the Court will decline to expand the reach of the Nollan/ Dolan exactions analysis to proposed conditions on development permits. 47 Id. 120 S.Ct at O cial Transcript of Oral Argument in Koontz v. St. John s River Water Management District, No (January 15, 2013), p. 42, lines In a previous exchange with counsel for Mr. Koontz, Justice Scalia expressed similar skepticism: I can t see where there s been a taking here. Nothing s been taken. Id., p. 25, lines Thomson Reuters E Real Estate Law Journal E Vol. 41 Spring
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District New England Housing Network Annual Conference December 6, 2013 Dwight Merriam, FAICP Robinson & Cole LLP You know the drill, these are my personal observations
More informationA CLOUD ON EVERY DECISION : NOLLAN/DOLAN AND LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS
A CLOUD ON EVERY DECISION : NOLLAN/DOLAN AND LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS presented at LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 2018 Annual Conference & Expo City Attorneys Track Friday, September 14, 2018, 8:00 a.m. 10:00
More informationAICP EXAM PREPARATION Planning Law Concepts Review
AICP EXAM PREPARATION Planning Law Concepts Review Prepared By: Christopher J. Smith, Esq. Shipman & Goodwin LLP One Constitution Plaza Hartford, CT 06103 (860) 251-5606 cjsmith@goodwin.com Christopher
More informationKoontz v. St Johns Water Management District
Koontz v. St Johns Water Management District New England Housing Network Annual Conference John Echeverria Vermont Law School December 6, 2013 What s a Taking? Nor shall private property be taken for public
More informationHighlands Takings Resources
Highlands Takings Resources Recent calls for landowner compensation continue to be heard throughout the Highlands region and in Trenton. Advocates of landowner compensation argue that any property right
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-275 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë MARVIN D. HORNE, et al., v. Petitioners, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Ë Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of
More informationEnvironmental Set-Asides and the Whole Parcel Rule
Environmental Set-Asides and the Whole Parcel Rule S415 Deborah M. Rosenthal, AICP S. Keith Garner, AICP APA s 2012 National Planning Conference Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP 2011 Key Learning
More informationThe Public Servant. Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections. Continued on page 2
Published by the Government & Public Sector Section of the North Carolina Bar Association Section Vol. 25, No. 1 October 2013 Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections U.S. Supreme
More informationSupreme Court Takings Decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns Water River Management District. Carolyn Detmer
Supreme Court Takings Decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns Water River Management District Carolyn Detmer Introduction Last summer, the Supreme Court decided three cases centered on takings issues. Of the three,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No: SC Lower Tribunal No: 5D ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No: SC09-713 Lower Tribunal No: 5D06-1116 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs. COY A. KOONTZ, ETC., Respondent. PETITIONER S BRIEF ON JURISDICTION
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-275 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë MARVIN D. HORNE, et al., v. Petitioners, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Ë Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States
More informationManta Dircks, Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow December 2016
Takings Liability and Coastal Management in Rhode Island Manta Dircks, Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow December 2016 The takings clauses of the federal and state constitutions provide an important basis
More informationNo ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
No. 11-597 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationLand Use Series. Property Taking, Types and Analysis. January 6, Bringing Knowledge to Life!
Land Use Series Bringing Knowledge to Life! Thirty seven million acres is all the Michigan we will ever have. Former Governor W illiam G. Milliken Michigan State University Extension, Greening Michigan
More informationSTEALING YOUR PROPERTY OR PAYING YOU FOR OBEYING THE LAW? TAKINGS EXACTIONS AFTER KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
STEALING YOUR PROPERTY OR PAYING YOU FOR OBEYING THE LAW? TAKINGS EXACTIONS AFTER KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT American College of Real Estate Lawyers Spring Meeting Kauai, HI March
More informationREGULATORY TAKINGS: WHAT DID PENN CENTRAL HOLD? THREE DECADES OF SUPREME COURT EXPLANATION I. INTRODUCTION
REGULATORY TAKINGS: WHAT DID PENN CENTRAL HOLD? THREE DECADES OF SUPREME COURT EXPLANATION TIPTON F. MCCUBBINS* I. INTRODUCTION Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City 1 is the pivotal case in
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida LEWIS, J. No. SC09-713 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs. COY A. KOONTZ, etc., Respondent. [November 3, 2011] This case is before the Court for review of
More informationKoontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections
Latham & Watkins Environment, Land & Resources Practice Number 1560 July 17, 2013 Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections US Supreme Court decision requires more government exactions
More informationLand Use, Zoning and Condemnation
Land Use, Zoning and Condemnation U.S. Supreme Court Separates Due Process Analysis From Federal Takings Claims The 5th Amendment Takings Clause provides that private property shall not be taken for public
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Bench Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 1998 1 NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 529 U. S. (2000) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES CLAUDE LAMBERT ET UX. v. CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL. ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEAL OF CALIFORNIA,
More informationMark Fenster, Failed Exactions, 36 Vt. L. Rev. 623 (2012), available at
University of Florida Levin College of Law UF Law Scholarship Repository Faculty Publications Faculty Scholarship 1-11-2012 Failed Exactions Mark Fenster University of Florida Levin College of Law, fenster@law.ufl.edu
More informationKoontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., No , 570 U.S. (2013) Mark Fenster Levin College of Law University of Florida
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., No. 11-1447, 570 U.S. (2013) Mark Fenster Levin College of Law University of Florida Nollan and Dolan Supreme Court decisions that require courts under the
More informationNo In the COY A. KOONTZ, JR., ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT,
Supreme Court, U.S. FILED AUG 1 4 2012 No. 11-1447 OFFICE OF THE CLERK In the 6upreme Court of tbe nitcb 'tat COY A. KOONTZ, JR., Petitioner, V. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. On
More informationRob McKenna Attorney General. Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property
Rob McKenna Attorney General Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property December 2006 Prepared by: Michael S. Grossmann, Senior Counsel Alan D. Copsey, Assistant Attorney
More informationProperty Taking, Types and Analysis
Michigan State University Extension Land Use Series Property Taking, Types and Analysis Original version: January 6, 2014 Last revised: January 6, 2014 If you do not give me the zoning permit, I'll sue
More informationFederal and State Standards Governing Exactions,
Robert C. Apgar Tallahassee, Florida; J.D., Florida State University, 1978; B.S., United States Air Force Academy, 1966. Adam G. Schwartz Akerman Senterfitt, West Palm Beach, Florida; J.D., Florida State
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
NO. 11-1447 In the Supreme Court of the United States COY A. KOONTZ, JR., v. Petitioner, ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-597 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, v. Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Ë Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, v. Case No. SC14-1092 COY A. KOONTZ, JR., AS Lower Tribunal Case No. 5D06-1116 PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1447 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States COY A. KOONTZ, JR., v. Petitioner, ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA BRIEF
More informationJUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by: JUDGE CONNELLY Taubman and Carparelli, JJ., concur. Announced: November 13, 2008
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS Court of Appeals No.: 07CA2184 El Paso County District Court No. 06CV4394 Honorable David S. Prince, Judge Wolf Ranch, LLC, a Colorado limited liability company, Petitioner-Appellant
More informationAICP Exam Review: Planning and Land Use Law
AICP Exam Review: Planning and Land Use Law February 7, 2014 David C. Kirk, FAICP Troutman Sanders LLP After all, a policeman must know the Constitution, then why not a planner? San Diego Gas & Electric
More information3Jn tlje ~upreme QCourt of tlje Wntteb ~tat~
No.14-275 3Jn tlje ~upreme QCourt of tlje Wntteb ~tat~ MARVIN D. HORNE, ET AL., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, Respondent. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF
More informationJAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY ***
EXTENDING REGULATORY TAKINGS THEORY BY APPLYING CONSTITUTIONAL DOCTRINE AND ELEVATING TAKINGS PRECEDENTS TO JUSTIFY HIGHER STANDARDS OF REVIEW IN KOONTZ * JAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY *** The Roberts
More informationTahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 122 S. Ct (2002)
Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law Volume 11 Issue 2 Article 30 2003 Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002) Mary Ernesti Follow this and
More informationNo IN THE Supreme Court of the United States. COY A. KOONTZ, JR., Petitioner v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent.
No. 11-1447 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States COY A. KOONTZ, JR., Petitioner v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Florida AMICI
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. SC DAVID M. POMERANCE and RICHARD C. POMERANCE, Plaintiffs/Appellants,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA No. SC00-912 DAVID M. POMERANCE and RICHARD C. POMERANCE, Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. THE HOMASASSA SPECIAL WATER DISTRICT, a political subdivision of the State
More informationLet s Be Reasonable: Why Neither Nollan/Dolan nor Penn Central Should Govern Generally- Applied Legislative Exactions After Koontz
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 34 Issue 2 Spring 2017 Article 1 April 2017 Let s Be Reasonable: Why Neither Nollan/Dolan nor Penn Central Should Govern Generally- Applied Legislative Exactions After
More informationTHE AFTERMATH OF KOONTZ AND CONDITIONAL DEMANDS: A PER SE TEST, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND A CONDITIONAL DEMAND
THE AFTERMATH OF KOONTZ AND CONDITIONAL DEMANDS: A PER SE TEST, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND A CONDITIONAL DEMAND JAMES E. HOLLOWAY* DONALD C. GUY** I. INTRODUCTION Standards of review that scrutinize takings
More informationRaisin' Contentions: A Farmer's Grapes of Wrath and the Ninth Circuit's Questionable Takings Analysis in Horne v. U.S. Dept.
Volume 26 Issue 2 Article 6 11-1-2015 Raisin' Contentions: A Farmer's Grapes of Wrath and the Ninth Circuit's Questionable Takings Analysis in Horne v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Drew S. McGehrin Follow
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1447 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States COY A. KOONTZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. On Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State of
More informationNO In the Supreme Court of the United States. ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.
NO. 11-597 In the Supreme Court of the United States ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court
More informationHorne v. United States Department of Agriculture: The Takings Clause and the Administrative State By Brian T. Hodges* & Christopher M.
Horne v. United States Department of Agriculture: The Takings Clause and the Administrative State By Brian T. Hodges* & Christopher M. Kieser** Note from the Editor: This article discusses and praises
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No: SC Lower Tribunal No: 5D ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA Case No: SC09-713 Lower Tribunal No: 5D06-1116 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs. COY A. KOONTZ, ETC., Respondent. On Appeal From The Fifth District
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. Case No. 5D
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2008 ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Appellant, v. Case No. 5D06-1116 COY A. KOONTZ, JR., ETC., Appellee. / Opinion
More informationRecent Legislation and Court Decisions Impacting Delaware Municipalities
Recent Legislation and Court Decisions Impacting Delaware Municipalities Max B. Walton Connolly Gallagher LLP 302-888-6297 mwalton@connollygallagher.com October 2, 2015 2 TOPICS I. First Amendment/Free
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 14-275 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- MARVIN D. HORNE,
More informationPace Environmental Law Review
Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 32 Issue 1 Winter 2015 Article 7 January 2015 Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District: Can Environmental Impact Analysis Preserve Sustainable Development
More informationCase 3:15-cv VC Document 72 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Case 3:15-cv-03392-VC Document 72 Filed 02/05/18 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION BAY AREA, v. Plaintiff, CITY OF OAKLAND, Defendant.
More informationSupreme Court of the United States BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS
No. 11-338 In The Supreme Court of the United States DOUG DECKER, et al., v. Petitioners, NORTHWEST ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE CENTER, et al., Respondents. BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
More informationFriday Session: 8:45 10:15 am
The Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute Friday Session: 8:45 10:15 am Takings: Lingle v. Chevron and the Future of Regulatory Takings in Land Use Law 8:45 10:15 a.m. Friday, March 10, 2006 Sturm College
More informationREVOLUTIONARY OR ROUTINE? KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
REVOLUTIONARY OR ROUTINE? KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT Molly Cohen and Rachel Proctor May Introduction... 245 I. Background... 246 A. Factual Background... 246 B. The Nollan/Dolan
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States COY A KOONTZ, JR., Petitioner, v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of the State
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1137 In the Supreme Court of the United States 616 CROFT AVE., LLC, and JONATHAN & SHELAH LEHRER-GRAIWER, Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 560 U. S. (2010) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 08 1151 STOP THE BEACH RENOURISHMENT, INC., PETITIONER v. FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ET AL. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 11-1352 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë CCA ASSOCIATES, v. UNITED STATES, Ë Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal
More informationCity of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey: Drawing the Battle Lines Clearly
Louisiana Law Review Volume 61 Number 1 Fall 2000 City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey: Drawing the Battle Lines Clearly Mark Mahaffey Repository Citation Mark Mahaffey, City of Monterey v.
More informationA REVIEW OF DEL MONTE DUNES V. CITY OF MONTEREY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXACTIONS
A REVIEW OF DEL MONTE DUNES V. CITY OF MONTEREY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT EXACTIONS NANCY E. STROUD[*] Copyright (c) 1999 Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law I. INTRODUCTION On May
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 12-918 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- ESTATE OF E. WAYNE
More informationIn Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional
The Supreme Court s Evolving Takings Jurisprudence: A First Look at Tahoe-Sierra By Steven J. Eagle Andrew O. Alcala/Lake Tahoe image by Corbis In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning
More informationUsing California Development Law to Clarify Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District's Silence
Ecology Law Quarterly Volume 41 Issue 2 Article 5 12-1-2014 Using California Development Law to Clarify Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District's Silence Nina Kumari Gupta Follow this and additional
More informationConstruing the Canon: An Exegesis of Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence After Lingle v. Chevron
Campbell University School of Law From the SelectedWorks of Michael B. Kent Jr. 2008 Construing the Canon: An Exegesis of Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence After Lingle v. Chevron Michael B. Kent, Jr.,
More informationDYING ON THE VINE: HOW A RETHINKING OF WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND TAKINGS REMEDIES UNDERCUTS WILLIAMSON COUNTY S RIPENESS DOCTRINE
DYING ON THE VINE: HOW A RETHINKING OF WITHOUT JUST COMPENSATION AND TAKINGS REMEDIES UNDERCUTS WILLIAMSON COUNTY S RIPENESS DOCTRINE J. David Breemer * INTRODUCTION... 62 I. TAKINGS DAMAGES AND THE STATE
More informationIN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF FEDERAL CLAIMS CASITAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT, ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) No. 05-168L ) ) v. ) ) Hon. John P. Wiese UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) ) Defendant. ) ) ) MEMORANDUM AMICUS
More informationON BARGAINING FOR DEVELOPMENT. Timothy M. Mulvaney *
ON BARGAINING FOR DEVELOPMENT Timothy M. Mulvaney * In his recent article, Bargaining for Development Post-Koontz, Professor Sean Nolon builds off the pioneering work of Carol Rose, Tony Arnold, and select
More informationIn The Supreme Court of the United States
No. 15-214 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- JOSEPH P. MURR,
More informationThe Top Ten Land Use Law Decisions of 2013 From Zoning to Regulatory Takings
The Top Ten Land Use Law Decisions of 2013 From Zoning to Regulatory Takings Friday, January 10, 2014 4:30-5:30 PM Dwight Merriam, FAICP Robinson & Cole LLP 1 Fast paced, national perspective, lessons
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 07-635 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë BRUCE PETERS, v. Petitioner, VILLAGE OF CLIFTON, an Illinois municipal corporation; ALEXANDER, COX & McTAGGERT, INC.; and JOSEPH McTAGGERT, Ë Respondents.
More informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 33 Nat Resources J. 4 (Wildlife Law and Policy Issues) Fall 1993 The Lucas Decision: Implication for Mining Law Reform Casenote Nancy Greif Recommended Citation Nancy Greif, The
More informationMontana Supreme Court Unnecessarily Misconstrues Takings Law
Montana Law Review Volume 55 Issue 2 Summer 1994 Article 10 July 1994 Montana Supreme Court Unnecessarily Misconstrues Takings Law John L. Horwich Professor of Law, University of Montana Hertha L. Lund
More informationPlanning Ahead: Consistency with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results for Municipalities
Oklahoma Law Review Volume 60 Number 1 2007 Planning Ahead: Consistency with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results for Municipalities Nathan Blackburn Follow this and additional works
More informationAre Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions
Seattle Journal of Environmental Law Volume 8 Issue 1 Article 1 8-31-2017 Are Critical Area Buffers Unconstitutional? Demystifying The Doctrine of Unconstitutional Conditions Brian T. Hodges Pacific Legal
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2012 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus
More informationJames E. Holloway* Donald C. Guy** ABSTRACT
\\jciprod01\productn\f\flc\14-2\flc201.txt unknown Seq: 1 23-JUL-13 12:14 THE USE OF THEORY MAKING AND DOCTRINE MAKING OF REGULATORY TAKINGS THEORY TO EXAMINE THE NEEDS, REASONS, AND ARGUMENTS TO ESTABLISH
More informationWill Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States Provide a Permanent Fix for Temporary Takings?
Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review Volume 41 Issue 2 Article 3 4-11-2014 Will Arkansas Game & Fish Commission v. United States Provide a Permanent Fix for Temporary Takings? Brian T. Hodges
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States
No. 11-597 In the Supreme Court of the United States ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States. 616 CROFT AVE., LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Respondent.
No. 16-1137 In the Supreme Court of the United States 616 CROFT AVE., LLC, et al., Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the California Court of Appeal
More informationTEMPORARY TAKINGS: SETTLED PRINCIPLES AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS
TEMPORARY TAKINGS: SETTLED PRINCIPLES AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS Daniel L. Siegel & Robert Meltz TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction... 480 I. Temporary Regulatory Actions... 482 A. Prospectively Temporary Regulations...
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO. Docket No ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO Docket No. 28055 KMST, LLC., an Idaho limited liability company, v. Plaintiff-Appellant, COUNTY OF ADA, a political subdivision of the State of Idaho, and Defendant,
More informationNo WILLIAM A. DABBS, JR. Petitioner, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Respondent.
No. 18-54 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WILLIAM A. DABBS, JR. Petitioner, v. ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY, Respondent. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND BRIEF
More informationUniversity of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review
University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review Volume 37 Issue 3 Article 5 2015 Constitutional Law Fifth Amendment and Takings Courts and the Judicial Process Will Impede Orderly City Development by
More informationTHE REMEDY FOR A NOLLAN/DOLAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS VIOLATION
THE REMEDY FOR A NOLLAN/DOLAN UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS VIOLATION Scott Woodward * INTRODUCTION The so-called unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits the government from conditioning the receipt
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1137 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States 616 CROFT AVE., LLC, AND JONATHAN & SHELAH LEHRER-GRAIWER, Petitioners, v. CITY OF WEST HOLLYWOOD, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
More informationSIGN AMORTIZATION LAWS: INSIGHT INTO PRECEDENT, PROPERTY, AND PUBLIC POLICY STEPHEN DURDEN * INTRODUCTION
SIGN AMORTIZATION LAWS: INSIGHT INTO PRECEDENT, PROPERTY, AND PUBLIC POLICY STEPHEN DURDEN * INTRODUCTION When cities or counties enact zoning regulations, they seek to create a better city by regulating
More informationNO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. CITY OF GLENN HEIGHTS, TEXAS, Petitioner. SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Respondent.
NO. 02-0033 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS CITY OF GLENN HEIGHTS, TEXAS, Petitioner v. SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Respondent. On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the Tenth District
More informationANTONIN SCALIA S FLAWED TAKINGS LEGACY
ANTONIN SCALIA S FLAWED TAKINGS LEGACY John D. Echeverria * INTRODUCTION... 689 I. JUSTICE SCALIA S TAKINGS WORK... 691 II. AGINS V. CITY OF TIBURON: SCALIA S TAKINGS ROSETTA STONE... 694 III. SCALIA S
More informationIn the Supreme Court of the United States PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
NO. In the Supreme Court of the United States ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals
More informationLockary et al., v. Kayfetz et al. 917 F.2d 1150 (9 th Cir. 1990) I. Statement of Facts and Proceedings
Chapter 5 - Prior Appropriation E. Appropriation of Dormant Riparian Rights Lockary et al., v. Kayfetz et al. 917 F.2d 1150 (9 th Cir. 1990) [Landowners sued community public utility district and others,
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASS N, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, Ë Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of California
More informationNo In the Supreme Court of the United States. October Term, 1999 ANTHONY PALAZZOLO,
No. 99-2047 In the Supreme Court of the United States October Term, 1999 ANTHONY PALAZZOLO, v. Petitioner, RHODE ISLAND ex rel. PAUL J. TAVARES, General Treasurer, and COASTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT COUNCIL,
More informationThe Land Use Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens: Two Views on Balancing Public and Private Interests in Property
ENVIRONS ENVIRONMENTAL LAW AND POLICY JOURNAL UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW VOLUME 34 FALL 2010 NUMBER 1 The Land Use Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens: Two Views on
More informationNOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 18 2011 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT WEST LINN CORPORATE PARK L.L.C., v. Plaintiff - Appellee, No. 05-36061
More informationWhen Local Government Misbehaves
Utah Law Review Volume 2016 Number 1 Article 3 2016 When Local Government Misbehaves Shelley Ross Saxer Follow this and additional works at: http://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr Part of the Land Use Law Commons
More informationA (800) (800) BRIEF OF CATO INSTITUTE AND REASON FOUNDATION AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER. No
No. 15-330 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States CALIFORNIA BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION, Petitioner, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, ET AL., Respondents. ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 16-1194 In the Supreme Court of the United States Ë KINDERACE, LLC, v. CITY OF SAMMAMISH, Ë Petitioner, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Washington State Court of Appeals Ë BRIEF
More informationAMERICAN FURNITURE WAREHOUSE CO., Plaintiff/Appellant, TOWN OF GILBERT, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV FILED
IN THE ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION ONE AMERICAN FURNITURE WAREHOUSE CO., Plaintiff/Appellant, v. TOWN OF GILBERT, Defendant/Appellee. No. 1 CA-CV 16-0773 FILED 7-10-2018 Appeal from the Superior
More informationIn the 11,upreme Qtourt of tbe mntteb &tates. JOSEPH P. MURR, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF WISCONSIN and ST. CROIX COUNTY, Respondents.
Supreme Court. U.S. FILED OCT 2 9 2015 No. 15-214 OFFICE OF THE CLERK In the 11,upreme Qtourt of tbe mntteb &tates JOSEPH P. MURR, et al., Petitioners, v. STATE OF WISCONSIN and ST. CROIX COUNTY, Respondents.
More informationCopyright 2002 Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR,
ELR 32 ELR 11235 NEWS& ANALYSIS A Turning of the Tide: The Tahoe-Sierra Regulatory Takings Decision On April 23, 2002, in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 1 the
More informationNollan and Dolan: The End of Municipal Land Use Extortion - A California Perspective
Santa Clara Law Review Volume 36 Number 2 Article 14 1-1-1996 Nollan and Dolan: The End of Municipal Land Use Extortion - A California Perspective Jason R. Biggs Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview
More information