Highlands Takings Resources

Similar documents
AICP EXAM PREPARATION Planning Law Concepts Review

Land Use Series. Property Taking, Types and Analysis. January 6, Bringing Knowledge to Life!

A CLOUD ON EVERY DECISION : NOLLAN/DOLAN AND LEGISLATIVE EXACTIONS

Property Taking, Types and Analysis

REGULATORY TAKINGS: WHAT DID PENN CENTRAL HOLD? THREE DECADES OF SUPREME COURT EXPLANATION I. INTRODUCTION

Zoning and Land Use Planning

Environmental Set-Asides and the Whole Parcel Rule

AICP Exam Review: Planning and Land Use Law

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Land Use, Zoning and Condemnation

No ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Supreme Court of the United States

Koontz v. St Johns Water Management District

Political Science Legal Studies 217

The Takings Clause: The Fifth Amendment

Friday Session: 8:45 10:15 am

STEALING YOUR PROPERTY OR PAYING YOU FOR OBEYING THE LAW? TAKINGS EXACTIONS AFTER KOONTZ v. ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

Manta Dircks, Rhode Island Sea Grant Law Fellow December 2016

Planning Ahead: Consistency with a Comprehensive Land Use Plan Yields Consistent Results for Municipalities

Supreme Court Takings Decisions: Koontz v. St. Johns Water River Management District. Carolyn Detmer

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No: SC Lower Tribunal No: 5D ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs.

Supreme Court of Florida

THE AFTERMATH OF KOONTZ AND CONDITIONAL DEMANDS: A PER SE TEST, PERSONAL PROPERTY, AND A CONDITIONAL DEMAND

Copyright 2002 Environmental Law Institute, Washington, DC. reprinted with permission from ELR,

No IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT HEMP INDUSTRIES ASSOCIATION, ET AL., DRUG ENFORCEMENT ADMINISTRATION, ET AL.

United States Constitutional Law: Theory, Practice, and Interpretation

Hands on the Bill of Rights

Construing the Canon: An Exegesis of Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence After Lingle v. Chevron

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey: Drawing the Battle Lines Clearly

Montana Supreme Court Unnecessarily Misconstrues Takings Law

In Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional

The Five Freedoms: 1. Religion 2. Assembly 3. Press 4. Petition 5. Speech RAPPS

Bill of Rights THE FIRST TEN AMENDMENTS

The Land Use Legacy of Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Stevens: Two Views on Balancing Public and Private Interests in Property

Managing Growth with Fairness: The Regulatory Takings Test of Smart Growth Policies. Practice Guide #2 Fall 2002

The Public Servant. Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections. Continued on page 2

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA. No. SC DAVID M. POMERANCE and RICHARD C. POMERANCE, Plaintiffs/Appellants,

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Day 7 - The Bill of Rights: A Transcription

Rob McKenna Attorney General. Advisory Memorandum: Avoiding Unconstitutional Takings of Private Property

JUDGMENT AFFIRMED. Division II Opinion by: JUDGE CONNELLY Taubman and Carparelli, JJ., concur. Announced: November 13, 2008

NO In the Supreme Court of the United States. ARKANSAS GAME & FISH COMMISSION, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent.

Takings Law: Issues of Interest to Mineral Property Owners

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

The Fifth Amendment holds that government

Supreme Court of the United States

JAMES E. HOLLOWAY ** & DONALD C. GUY ***

The United States Constitution

NO IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS. CITY OF GLENN HEIGHTS, TEXAS, Petitioner. SHEFFIELD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, INC., Respondent.

Supreme Court of the United States

Koontz Decision Extends Property Owners Constitutional Protections

People can have weapons within limits, and be apart of the state protectors. Group 2

Supreme Court of the United States BRIEF AMICI CURIAE OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME BUILDERS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS

Civil Liberties & the Rights of the Accused CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Bill of Rights! First 10!!! What were the basic rights promised in the Bill of Rights?

Forensics and Bill of Rights. Elkins

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 122 S. Ct (2002)

Objectives : Objectives (cont d): Sources of US Law. The Nature of the Law

Supreme Court of the United States

Baumgartner, POLI 195 Spring 2013

SIGN AMORTIZATION LAWS: INSIGHT INTO PRECEDENT, PROPERTY, AND PUBLIC POLICY STEPHEN DURDEN * INTRODUCTION

King v. North Carolina: A Misinterpretation of the Lucas Takings Rule

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY WAGNER GRADUATE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC SERVICE

PHILOSOPHY OF LAND USE REGULATIONS: SETTING THE STAGE

James E. Holloway* Donald C. Guy** ABSTRACT

Is the Penn Central Three-Factor Test Ready for History's Dustbin? By John D. Echeverria

Supreme 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.

Fordham Environmental Law Review

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA. Case No: SC Lower Tribunal No: 5D ST. JOHNS RIVER WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT, Petitioner, vs.

upreme ourt of tl)e niteb tate

Civil Rights. New Employee Orientation March 2018

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Catholic University Law Review

constitutional challenges to the laws that help protect our historic resources. In a country

The Bill of Rights determines how you must be treated by the government. It outlines your rights as an American.

Ch. 5 (pt 2): Civil Liberties: The Rest of the Bill of Rights

Book Review [Grand Theft and the Petit Larcency: Property Rights in America]

In The Supreme Court of the United States

The Bill of Rights. Part One: Read the Expert Information and highlight the main ideas and supporting details.

TAHOE-SIERRA PRESERVATION COUNCIL, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING AGENCY, et al. 535 U.S. 302 (2002)

Land Use Update The Practical Ramifications of the Sheffield v. Glenn Heights and Flower Mound v. Stafford Decisions

Danielle Monnig. Volume 11 Issue 1 Article 7

3Jn tlje ~upreme QCourt of tlje Wntteb ~tat~

Caught in the Toils of Regulation: Tahoe-Sierra, Ripeness, Permit Requirements, and a Measure of Relief

TEMPORARY TAKINGS: SETTLED PRINCIPLES AND UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS

No IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES OCTOBER TERM, CITY OF MONTEREY, Petitioner,

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE May 7, 2003 Session

Supreme Court of the United States

Maine Law Review. Philip R. Saucier University of Maine School of Law. Volume 55 Number 2 University of Maine School of Law Lecture Series.

First Amendment. Original language:

CONSTITUTION of the COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

Let s Be Reasonable: Why Neither Nollan/Dolan nor Penn Central Should Govern Generally- Applied Legislative Exactions After Koontz

U.S. History. Constitution. Why is compromise essential to the foundation of our government? Name: Period: Due:

Appendix A. Constitution of the United States of America: Provisions of Particular Interest to Postsecondary Education **** **** ****

Garden State Preservation Trust May 11 th, 2005 Meeting Minutes

Transcription:

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 and value diminished by the Highlands Act, the DEP Preservation Area Regulations and/or the Highlands Regional Master Plan, constitute a taking under the 5 th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, and the New Jersey Constitution. Sometimes, the 14 th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution (due process) also is invoked. The argument is far less simple than these advocates maintain. The call for landowner compensation has become a political rather than a legal question in New Jersey. State elected officials, up to the highest levels, have and continue to give support to the contention that compensation is due. The public and decision makers at all levels generally do not have a working understanding of takings and are likely to be swayed by arguments that have no basis in law. Without such an understanding, unwise political and administrative decisions are possible, which could have serious negative impacts on New Jersey s open space and environmental future and may well reverberate beyond our borders. The following list of materials will help members of the public, environmental commissioners, planning board members and elected officials form a rational understanding of takings that may help prevent dangerous and destructive public policy. Constitutional Provisions The takings issue is related to two Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, the 5 th and 14 th Amendments in Article I, Paragraph 20 in the New Jersey Constitution. Constitutional law evolves over time through the actions of legislatures and oversight by the U.S Supreme Court. Like many other issues, the takings doctrine has evolved over the course of history. Thus, both the federal and State constitutional provisions must be viewed in the context of relevant legal decisions. U.S. Constitution 5th Amendment (1789) No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Emphasis added) 14 th Amendment (1868) 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State 1

shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. (Emphasis added) New Jersey Constitution (1947) Article I Rights and Privileges 20. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation. Individuals or private corporations shall not be authorized to take private property for public use without just compensation first made to the owners. (Emphasis added) Important U.S. Supreme Court and New Jersey Cases Important U.S. Supreme Court cases followed by New Jersey cases are presented below with links to the decisions. U.S. Supreme Court Cases Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922) - Regulatory takings doctrine established. Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) - establishes factors to consider in takings claim. Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) - adopted two-part test. Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U.S. 419 (1982) - physical occupation of property First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304 (1987) - temporary takings Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) - requirement that a reasonable relationship exist between the property taken and a corresponding public need Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) - total taking Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994) - rough proportionality required for dedication City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes, 526 U.S. 687 (1999) - rough proportionality test inapplicable to permit denial Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001) - acquiring property after adoption of challenged regulation Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning, 535 U.S. 302 (2002) - temporary taking Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) - rejected Agins two-part test Highlands New Jersey Court Cases 2

OFP L.L.C v. State of New Jersey Found that o due process and equal protection rights were not violated; o a taking claim cannot be made before exhausting administrative remedies; and o the constitutional challenge was rejected. The County of Warren et al v. the State of New Jersey The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New Jersey Highlands Water Protection and Planning Council, and the New Jersey Water Supply Authority Warren Co. et. al. Case brought by Warren County and several landowners was dismissed in the Superior Court but appealed to NJ Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld the trial court s decision and: o Upheld extended time to complete the RMP; o Found the Right to Farm not a fundamental constitutional right; o Found that a taking had not occurred because landowners still have some beneficial uses; o Said farming was favored and not impeded by Highlands Act; o Found that value reduction per se did not constitute a taking; o Found that equal protection rights had not been violated; o Upheld boundaries of the Highlands area and preservation area; o Found that large landowners had not been discriminated against; o Upheld broad, multiple purposes of the Act. Takings Law, General Principles Takings Law in Plain English [Paperback] Christopher Duerkson (Author), Richard Roddewig (Author), Elizabeth Byrd Wood (Editor). Excellent brief background Takings Law, short paper, with case law summaries Regulatory Takings, short paper with links to important U.S. Supreme Court Cases New Jersey Highlands Water Planning and Protection Act NJ Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act (full text) See: Sections relating to compensation : 2(paragraphs 6, 7), 6(n), 6(o), 11(2)(a), 24, 35(b)(3) Frequently Asked Questions (NJ Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act) Exemptions and Waivers (NJ Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act) Note #3 under Waivers. 3

Amendments and Executive Orders Note extension of special appraisal provisions. Farming (NJ Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act) Note special provisions for agricultural uses. Highlands Act Exemptions for Single Family Dwellings Highlands Regional Master Plan See: Chapter 1, pgs.18, 19, Chapter 2, p.41, Chapter 3, p.73 and Part 7, Chapter 4, p 137 and Part 7, Chapter 5, p. 314, and Part 7 Highlands Technical Reports (15) See especially TDR Technical Report NJ DEP Highlands Preservation Area Rules The Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act authorized the NJ DEP to adopt special rules relating to the Preservation Area only. Full Text of N.J. Highlands Rules: N.J.A.C. 7:38 See 7:38 (6.8) (11.6) NJ DEP Highlands Guidance General information on Highlands Act and regulations, including Highlands myths Christie Transition Team Report on Authorities Rethink the Highlands Council (p.6) Advice of the Authorities Transition Team given to Governor Christie prior to assuming office, in many cases erroneous and ideologically driven Highlands Land Preservation Land preservation in the Highlands as elsewhere in New Jersey provides financial compensation to landowners who voluntarily sell their properties to state, county, and/or local government or to nonprofit land trusts. State funding, administered by the Garden State Preservation Trust may come through the Green Acres program, the Farmland Preservation Program, or Historic Preservation programs. This funding is often matched with local or county open space funds derived from a portion of the real estate taxes dedicated to open space trust funds or with nonprofit land trust funding. Municipalities and counties with open space trust funds produce open space plans that define what lands should be preserved. Importantly the Highlands RMP also defines and prioritizes natural resource and agricultural lands for preservation. This detailed planned land acquisition framework is unique in the United States. 4

These programs have been highly effective in the Highlands and funds have been nearly exhausted as of April 2013 unless state legislative action renews these funds. Highlands Land Preservation Report (2012) Details land preservation activities in the Highlands as of 2010 Garden State Preservation Trust Highlands Statistics Provides statistics of state funded land preservation in the Highlands for Fiscal Years 2000-2012. New Jersey Green Acres Program New Jersey Farmland Preservation Program Transfer of Development Rights (General) Beyond Takings and Givings by Rick Pruetz provides an in depth discussion of transfer of development rights from a national perspective. Chapter IV, What Are TDR s Legal Considerations? by Daniel I.Berger, Esq., is of particular interest. Find an outline of the book and its contents at http://www.beyondtakingsandgivings.com/legal.htm Highlands TDR Program See Highlands Water Protection and Planning Act: Section 11 Highlands TDR Program - Explains the Highlands TDR Program and includes information for landowners, developers and municipalities By David Peifer, ANJEC Highlands Project Director, dpeifer@anjec.org 5