KITV reports that “Waves Wash Debris Onto North Shore Roadways” during winter high surf on Oahu’s famed North Shore.
What does this mean when the boundary between public property and private land on the shoreline is the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, as evidenced by the vegetation or the debris
No easy answers on seawalls, a column in today’s Advertiser, poses an interesting question. Is it legal to walk on seawalls where there is no beach makai (seaward) of the wall:
Q. In Kane’ohe Bay on O’ahu, there are numerous stretches of the coastline that do not have a beach but rather, the
We all know that in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii Planning Comm’n, 79 Haw. 25, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995), the Hawaii Supreme Court held:
Our examination of the relevant legal developments in Hawaiian history leads us to the conclusion that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawai’i.
The court
I had the pleasure and honor to participate as faculty in this year’s Hawaii Land Use Conference, which wrapped up yesterday.
The two-day conference covered the spectrum of topics relating to land use, including eminent domain, regulatory takings, endangered species act and federal Corps of Engineers permits, the treatment of agricultural land under Hawaii’s unique
For those of you who attended the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, thank you. Here are the materials I mentioned in my session on Water, Water, Everywhere: Coastal Zone Management Permits; Hawaii’s Floodway, Floodplain and Coastal Inundation Zone Requirements, plus a few others I did not have time to cover:
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii has given his State of the Judiciary address, available here. Here’s an excerpt:
Legislators, as you well know, enact laws in accordance with what they understand to be the popular will and in the public interest. Judges, however, apply the law that is the result of longstanding common law traditions and legislative processes to the evidence in individual cases; judges do so even when the loudest voices at the time may have other conceptions about what the law or result should be in a particular case. In short, a judge’s first and foremost duty is to fairly and impartially apply the constitution and the law to the facts of the case. A judge’s personal feelings about what the law “should be” has no place in his or her deliberations.
In addition to the bills I mentioned earlier, more measures have been introduced in the Hawaii legislature to amend state eminent domain law.
Prohibits use of eminent domain for private purpose; defines private purpose; where condemned property is transferred to private entity, not a common carrier or public
It’s being reported that the Hawaii Community Development Authority has backed off its plans to widen Queen Street in Honolulu because of delays and increasing costs. The plans would have used the power of eminent domain to take the property of businesses on both sides of the street. More stories posted here and here (video). Update (2/8/2007) – the Star-Bulletin reports that the ID 11 project was killed by a unanimous vote by HDCA.
The widening project was thought by many to be a “done deal,” believing there was no way to stop the taking. But this just shows that even in a jurisdiction with fairly weak protections for owners whose property is targeted for acquisition by the government, there are ways to object and protect your property.
According to one U.S. District Court (N.D. Iowa), there is no right to a jury trial on the issue of whether a land use ordinance is constitutional. The decision applies City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999). In Doctor John’s Inc., v. City of Sioux City, a case involving the regulation of the plaintiff’s “adult” store, the district court held that the City has no Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury on the issue of whether its ordinances are constitutional.
The court’s decision can be found here (pdf).
Continue Reading ▪ No Jury Trial on “Constitutionality” of Land Use Laws