February 2007

The Supreme Court of Hawaii heard arguments today in the appeal involving 2004’s property tax Charter Amendment from Kauai.  Details of the case and issue here.

Coverage of today’s arguments:

Past coverage of the appeal:

   
Continue Reading ▪ Supreme Court of Hawaii Hears Property Tax Arguments

Professor Paul Boudreaux at Land Use Prof Blog asks Should government land use science be easier to challenge?  He details a Utah proposal to allow a developer to introduce evidence demonstrating that the science supporting a zoning restriction is faulty, and compel binding arbitration if the government rejects the evidence.

Interesting concept.  One might think, under Euclidean norms, that the comprehensiveness of the process would produce a scientifically-valid outcome, but anyone who plays the land use game knows that is not necessarily the case, and the data used to support land use regulation often reminds me of a certain kind of science….Weird Science.

    
Continue Reading ▪ Land Use Regulation and “Science”

HawsctbldgOn February 15, 2007 from 9:00 – 10:00 a.m., the Supreme Court of Hawaii will hear oral arguments in County of Kauai ex rel. Nakazawa v. Baptiste, the appeal involving 2004’s “Ohana Kauai” charter amendment. 

The hearing will be held in the Supreme Court courtroom in the JudiciaryBuilding on King Street in Honolulu.  Theproceedings are open to the public.

The facts of the case are straightforward.  In November 2004, the people of the Countyof Kauai overwhelmingly approved an amendment to their county Charter addressing propertytaxes.  The Charter Amendment provided that property taxes should be restored to 1998 levels for owner-occupied homes of residents who had owned their properties since at least 1998.  For homeowners who purchased after 1998, the tax level is based on purchase price. Future tax increases for all resident homeowners could not exceed 2% per year.

The Mayor and members of the County Council…

Continue Reading ▪ Property Tax Appeal Argument Preview

If the government takes your property for public use by eminent domain, it should make you whole, right?  After all, eminent domain is the government’s ability to force an unwilling owner to sell her property, so shouldn’t the government have to put the owner in as good a position as she was before the taking?

Not quite.  If only “Just Compensation” as required by the constitution were truly just. 

A tale of eminent domain woe out of Cumberland County, Virginia has lessons for Hawaii property owners.  Read the article for the details on the facts, but here’s the short form: the county auctioned off excess property (a dilapidated school), and a local realtor purchased and renovated the property, investing $360,000 into the effort.  Then the government changed its mind, “decided they needed the school after all,” condemned it, deposited $200,000 to the court as “just compensation,” and seized it from…

Continue Reading ▪ How Just is “Just Compensation”