If you picked up and read a copy of Braun v. Ann Arbor Charter Township, No. 07-1370 (Mar. 13, 2008), an opinion by the US Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, without having read the briefs of the parties and the decision of the court below, you might not see anything terribly
9th Cir: Senior Citizens Are Not Automatically Considered “Disabled”
With a name like Carefree, Arizona, who wouldn’t want to spend the golden years there? That appears to have been what was on the mind of one F.G. Budnick, a developer, when he decided he wanted to build the “Residences at Carefree,” which he described as a “luxurious, age restricted, senior retirement residential community,”
9th Cir: Due Process “Hassle”
How often do you see a published opinion from a federal court of appeals that uses the word “hassle” to describe needless litigation? Well, thanks to the irrepressible Chief Judge Kozinski, we now have citeworthy precedent from Clement v. City of Glendale, No. 05-56692 (Mar. 11, 2008):
Officer Young could have avoided years of
Inverse Condemnation and the Border Patrol
Here’s another case involving property rights along the U.S. – Mexico border, but the issue is somewhat different than last week’s US v. 1.04 Acres case. The issue this time is not the border fence, and it’s not about an affirmative exercise of eminent domain. Instead, this case involves allegations of entry onto private property
Eminent Domain and the Border Fence
What does a fence along the U.S. – Mexico border to deter illegal crossings have to do with eminent domain law? Well, when the government is condemning property for the fence, a lot.
When it decided to put up a fence along the US-Mexico border,Congress gave the Attorney General the power to use eminent domain:
Associated Press: “Hawaii: Tourists Make Lousy Neighbors”
In a story titled “Hawaii: Tourists Make Lousy Neighbors,” the Associated Press summarizes the “transient vacation rental” issue that’s been making waves on Oahu, Maui, and Kauai. Only one county, the Big Island of Hawaii, does not actively regulate vacation rentals. Not a very encouraging headline for an economy dependent
NIMBYs, BANANAs, CAVEs and DUDEs
Jesse Souki’s post on his Hawaii Land Use Law blog, “NIMBY Group Stymies 700 Home Affordable Housing Project on Maui,” about a state-court challenge to a housing project, brings up a topic that is fun to revisit every now and then: the cheeky acronyms that get tossed about in the land use business.
Legal Challenge to Sedona, Arizona Short-Term Rental Ban
As reported here, a lawsuit was filed in Arizona state courts seeking to invalidate Sedona, Arizona’s prohibition on short-term rentals (less than 30 days):
Approximately 450 short-term rental properties in Sedona have beenimpacted by the new Ordinance making it illegal to advertise short-termrentals, and the Code prohibiting short-term rentals.
This ordinance was enacted by
Taking Property to Prohibit Development
Cert Petition to Overrule Williamson County Denied
The US Supreme Court has denied a petition to review a Seventh Circuit opinion which dismissed a property owner’s regulatory takings challenge on ripeness grounds under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). The questions presented by the petition called for overruling Williamson County.
The case is Peters