Most municipal zoning codes prohibit the operation of a “business” in a residential zone. Does this mean you can’t have a “home office” or take work-related calls at home? In most circumstances, doing so does not run afoul of the zoning code if the primary use of the home remains a dwelling house, and the
Friday’s Columbia “Blight” Case (Kaur) Links
Here’s a round-up of reports and analysis of yesterday’s opinion by the New York Court of Appeals in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125:
- “Judicial review of eminent domain in New York is fundamentally broken” – Damon W. Root (Reason blog)
New York Still Has “Unfrozen Caveman Judges” Who Are “Frightened And Confused” By Eminent Domain Blight
More on today’s opinion in the “Columbia U. blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125.
As we noted in our critique of the Atlantic Yards case (Goldstein), New York judges apparently are too “frightened and confused” by allegations that property is not truly “substandard or unsanitary,” so
There Really Are No Limits To Eminent Domain In New York – Court Of Appeals Reverses The Columbia Case (Kaur)
The New York Court of Appeals today reversed the Columbia “blight” case, Kaur v. New York State Urban Development Corp., No. 125 (June 24, 2010). The unanimous opinion came swiftly (oral arguments were just under a month ago), suggesting it was not a close call for the court. Here’s the Appellate Division’s opinion
Permit Condition Requiring “Active” Farming Struck Down Under Nollan/Dolan
We rarely post developments from trial courts, but every now and then a trial court order is so interesting that we deviate from our usual rule. Here’s one that’s worth sharing.
In Sterling v. California Coastal Comm’n, No. CIV. 482448 (Cal. Super. June 18, 2010), the San Mateo County Superior Court (the county immediately
Oral Argument Recording In Ninth Circuit Rent Control Taking Case (Guggenheim)
Yesterday, we attended and posted a long summary of the en banc oral arguments in Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, the case challenging the city’s mobile home rent control ordinance as a regulatory taking, now pending in the Ninth Circuit.
Today, the court posted the sound recording of the argument.
Download it here (caution
Ninth Circuit Rent Control Taking Case (Guggenheim) En Banc Oral Argument Report
Pasadena, California (June 23, 2010) – Even in the rarefied, academic atmosphere of an appellate court, an advocate must sometimes have a thick skin. Today’s Ninth Circuit en banc oral arguments in the rent control takings case, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, was one where the two lawyers who argued the case certainly came
Ninth Circuit Rent Control Taking Case (Guggenheim) En Banc Oral Argument Report pt. III
Continued from Part II
The court was not much easier on the City’s attorney, even though one might think that the hard time they gave the property owners’ counsel indicated they were more sympathetic to the City’s arguments.
Right off the bat, Judge Callahan asked Schwartz whether he “conceded” [appellate advocate alarm bells going off]
Ninth Circuit Rent Control Taking Case (Guggenheim) En Banc Oral Argument Report pt. II
Continued from Part I
Coldron seemed to sense that the court was in danger of veering off track and buying into the argument in the amicus brief filed by the League of California Cities and California State Association of Counties in support of the city about the claim being time-barred. Judge Clifton returned to his
Ninth Circuit Rent Control Taking Case (Guggenheim) En Banc Oral Argument Report pt. I
Even in the rarefied, academic atmosphere of an appellate court, an advocate must sometimes have a thick skin. Today’s Ninth Circuit en banc oral arguments in the rent control takings case, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, was one where the two lawyers who argued the case certainly came away with a few callouses.
Guggenheim