Little Pink House – A True Story of Defiance and Courage, the recently-published book about the infamous 2005 eminent domain case Kelo v. City of New London,545 U.S. 469 (2005) (available from Amazon here), is generating interest:
…
According to this story from the BLT (Blog of Legal Times), President Obama has appointed Judge Emily C. Hewitt as the new Chief Judge of the Court of Federal Claims.
This is of interest to readers of this blog, of course, because the CFC hears regulatory takings and inverse condemnation claims by property owners who…
Thanks to Dwight Merriam for the heads-up on “Driven Out,” the upcoming New York Times book review of Little Pink House – A True Story of Defiance and Courage, about the infamous 2005 eminent domain case Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005). The review laments the Supreme Court’s…
A teaser for The Battle of Brooklyn, produced by the Moving Picture Institute (which “nurtures promising filmmakers who are committed to protecting and sustaining a free society”) about the ongoing redevelopment dispute in Brooklyn over the Atlantic Yards project. The summary describes the film:
The Battle of Brooklyn explores the poorly understood phenomenonof eminent…
Okay, we’ve decided to surrender to temptation and let fly with bad (and obvious) egg puns. But at least they’re out of our system in the beginning. After that, no more yolks. We promise.
In Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. United States,No. 2007-5169 (Mar. 12, 2009), the U.S. Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit…
Check out the interview with Nalo Farms owner (and Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation president) Dean Okimoto in this month’s Hawaii Business.
here text
The state Constitution even, in article XI, section 3, expressly protects farming and ranching by commanding the State to “conserve and protectagricultural lands, promote diversified agriculture, increaseagricultural self-sufficiency and assure…
Thank you to Kamuela attorney Margaret Wille for allowing us to post the commentary she published in West Hawaii Today (Mar. 7, 2009), but which is not available on line. Posting on inversecondemnation.com is not an endorsement of the views expressed or the conclusions reached, but we thought it was worthwhile to hear others’ voices on this important subject. Disclosure: we represent the property owners in the eminent domain cases instituted by the County, County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship which she discusses. Our thoughts on the topic are posted here.
Who Pays For Impacts: You Do
by Margaret Wille
Recently there have been several articles in West Hawaii Today about “fair share” versus “impact” fees. Probably there are many readers who wonder why do these fees matter to me. In other words, does this issue affect the ordinary Big Island taxpayer? Yes, very much so.
These fees, regardless of name, are charged to developers to defray a portion of the cost to maintain the current level of service for one or more categories of public facilities impacted by the proposed development.
The first question to ask is whether you believe the developer who reaps the financial benefit of the new development should shoulder a portion of the financial cost to maintain the current level of service for affected public facilities that are off of the developed property, e.g. area roads or police and fire stations. Would you rather all of the resulting costs to maintain the current level of service of these affected public facilities be paid for by us existing taxpayers? By way of example, when Costco went in, who paid the 5.5 million in cost to upgrade the Queen K intersection, just to maintain the current level of service at that intersection (I believe the level of service of that intersection was level D if not worse.) We did, you, me, all of us existing taxpayers and businesses paid for the improvements needed just to continue at that same low level of service (and if bond money was used for a portion of either the County’s or the State’s cost, you could say we saddled our kids with some of this expense). If the County had passed a development fee ordinance consistent with the State’s 1992 impact fee law, some of the County’s cost of those intersection improvements would instead have been paid by Costco’s owners.
Continue Reading Impact Fees And “Fair Share” Guest Commentary: “Who Pays For Impacts: You Do”
Develop Don’t Destroy 104597/07 (Brooklyn) v. Urban Dev. Corp., 2009 NY Slip Op 01395 (Feb. 26, 2009) is the latest decision involving Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards redevelopment project. See “A Hole Grows In Brooklyn” from the Wall Street Journal for more. An earlier constitutional objection to the public use of the taking was…
Two more amicus briefs supporting the petitioner in Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Giannoulias, No. 08-945 (cert. petition filed Jan. 21, 2009) are available.
In that case, the Illinois Supreme Court held (896N.E.2d 277 (Ill. 2008) that a regulation which imposes a 3%”surcharge” on Illinois casinos with gross receipts over $200 millionper year, …
The U.S. Court of Appeals has denied a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc in Casitas Municipal Water District v. United States,No. 2007-5153 (Sep. 25, 2008), a decision we noted here. In September 2008, a panel held that contractual waterrights were taken when the federal government required the landowner toconstruct a fish…
