We don’t normally post press releases (except our own, natch), but this one jumped out for its uniqueness. Georgia property owners who object to the taking of their store and land are trying to sell their property to “anyone and everyone” and get the new owners on the deed to force the city to serve
New Book – Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights
Next month, the ABA Section of State & Local Government Law will be publishing a book by Professor Rachelle Alterman, Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights:
Everywhere in the world, land use law and regulation affect realproperty values–either increasing or decreasing them. Regulatorytakings is the potential raw
Oral Argument Preview, Part II: Hawaii Supreme Court Considers Whether A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Triggers A Supplemental EIS
This is Part II of our preview of the oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, the case in which the IntermediateCourt of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343.
In this post
Oral Argument Preview, Part I: Hawaii Supreme Court Considers Whether A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Triggers A Supplemental EIS
On Thursday, December 17, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Hawaii time, the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu. Note: Justice Recktenwald is recused and Circuit Judge Derrick Chan will be taking his place.
This post will review the issues in the case, and provide
Behind The Music: Berman v. Parker
For better or worse, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Berman v. Parker,348U.S. 26 (1954) marks the legal genesis of modern public use jurisprudence. The Court’s opinion in the case is pretty thin on facts, however, and does not provide any real clue regarding what was going on, or how the case came
NY Times Editorial On Eminent Domain: Columbia Case “Completely Out Of Step With Eminent Domain Law” And Is “Weakly Reasoned.” Really?
In the editorial “Eminent Domain in New York,” (Dec. 13, 2009), the New York Times opines about the two recent eminent domain decisions from the New York state appellate courts:
A New York State appellate court has misguidedly put a roadblock in theway of Columbia University’s expansion plans, ruling that the statemisused eminent
Live Blog Of Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?
This is the live blog of the Hawaii Supreme Court oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, the case in which the IntermediateCourt of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343.
The recording of the oral argument is available here. Or stream it below and follow along with the live blog archive:
More about the issues here, and our summary of the arguments in the briefs here.
Continue Reading Live Blog Of Turtle Bay/Kuilima EIS Case: Is A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Enough To Trigger Supplemental EIS?
Landmarked For Being Loosely Linked To Famous Architect?
I was reading this article in the San Francisco Chronicle about a dispute over whether a “concrete, flat-roofed Berkeley building [scroll down to the “Mobilized Women of Berkeley” listing] loosely linked to [architect] Bernard Maybeck” could be landmarked. According to the story:
The architect whose name is on the drawings of 1007 University Ave.
Maine Supreme Court: No Notice To Claims Commission Under New Law
Until recently, a Maine property owner who sought review of a Claims Commission award of compensation needed to provide notice to the Commission of the appeal to Superior Court. Mr. Morrill believed a Commission award was insufficient and appealed, but did not provide notice. The Superior Court dismissed the case.
Morrill was in luck, however
University’s Taking For “Athletic Village” Is For Public Use
In State ex rel. Bd. of Regents v. McCloskey Brothers, No. 105228 (Dec. 8, 2009), the Oklahoma Supreme Court held that Oklahoma State University can take property for creation of an “athletic village.” Here’s the entirety of the public use holding:
The landowner argues that the taking was not for a proper public purpose