New filings in the federal district court litigation challenging the County of Maui’s “workforce housing” ordinance. Enacted in 2006, the Maui ordinance imposes a 40% to 50% affordable requirement on most development, including the subdivision of land. A property owner subject to this exaction challenged the ordinance under the Nollan/Dolan doctrine of unconstitutional exactions, which requires the governmentto show a substantial nexus between the exaction and some problemcaused by the property owner before the government may demand tributeas a condition of development. The exaction must also be roughlyproportional to the problem.
In July 2008, the court held that the plaintiff’s Nollan/Dolan claims are takings claims that are not ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). The district court’s lengthy opinionheld that despite labeling its claim as one under the “unconstitutionalconditions doctrine,” the claim was a facial takings claim which issubject to Williamson County‘srequirement that the plaintiff first seek — and be denied –compensation via state procedures. The court allowed the remainingfederal claims to go forward. Professor Patty Salkin summarized theopinion on her Law of the Land blog here.
The County sought reconsideration of the denial of its motion for summary judgment, and has also filed an additional motion for summary judgment on the substantive due process, equal protection, and state law claims. The property owner has also sought summary judgment:
- The County’s Reply Brieffor its motion for reconsideration of the denial of the County’s motion to dismiss.
- The County’s motion for summary judgment (filed Aug. 13, 3008).
- The property owner’s motion for summary judgment (filed Aug. 13, 2008).
Hearing on these motions are scheduled for September 2008.