In 2007, the courts started to apply the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), especially how to mesh the Court’s deferential standard of review with property owner claims of pretext.
Kelo left intact the standard that a determination that a taking will be for public…
California’s Flash Report posted my op-ed “Hawaii Government Sues Itself to Quash Property Tax Relief — And Wins” about the Kauai real property tax charter amendment appeal.
A round up of posts of possible interest to readers:
The 18-page lawsuit names as defendants thecounty of Kaua‘i, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Departmentand its director. It asks for the Koloa Creekside Estates …
A federal regulatory takings claim being litigated in the first instance in federal court? Why, that’s as rare as hen’s teeth.
Here’s the deal: under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank,473 U.S. 172 (1985), a federal regulatory takings claim is not ripe until the property owners has first pursued compensation through available…
Following up on a recent post about a possible legal challenge to Hawaii’s system of “open” primaries: the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Maryland, W. Virginia, Virginia, North and South Carolina) has denied rehearing/en banc review to a panel decision declaring Virginia’s open primary unconstitutional. Circuit Judge Wilkinson dissents in a detailed…
In August, by a3-2 vote, the Hawaii Supreme Court determined that the term “county” inarticle VIII, section 3 of the Hawaii Constitution means “countycouncils.” The majority held that only county councils may establish property tax policies, and that voters of the county have no power to do so directly by amending their county charter.
The…
The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in the Hawaii Superferry case, coming as it did mere hours after oral argument and just days before the ferry was scheduled to sail, certainly was the issue dominating the headlines in the last quarter of 2007, especially after the Legislature was called into special session to pass legislation…
These seemingly unrelated court decisions were tied together with a common thread: private agreements for the most part are not substitutes for public processes, whether it is eminent domain, rezoning, or the granting of permits.
Several courts determined that agreements in which government agreed with private parties to exercise eminent domain were invalid:
…
