2011

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser published my movie review of “Battle For Brooklyn,” the documentary about the Atlantic Yards eminent domain fight, on the op-ed page. Check it out here or below. More importantly, if you are in Honolulu next week, come to one of the four screenings (details and link to ticket purchase below).

‘Battle for Brooklyn’ coming to rail project near you

Battle for Brooklyn film posterHow would you react if the government ordered you to give up your home or business so a developer could build an arena for his basketball team? Accept what money is offered, or dig in your heels and fight?

“Battle for Brooklyn,” the Oscar-contending documentary premiering in Hawaii next week, chronicles one homeowner’s fight against the city’s taking of his property. But the film leaves open the question of whether he did the right thing, for the right reasons.

The film compresses seven years of events…

Continue Reading Movie Review: “Battle For Brooklyn” — Lessons For Honolulu Rail From A Reluctant Activist

Today’s 6-1 California Supreme Court opinion in California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, No. S194861 (Dec. 29, 2011) brings to mind two of our favorite loanwords: schadenfreude (deriving pleasure from the misfortune of others) and schlimmbesserung (to worsen by improvement).

The first because we can’t say we’re crying much about the takedown of California redevelopment agencies, which are collectively probably the largest abusers of eminent domain in the state, and the second because the track record of these agencies in actually accomplishing their stated goals of economic development is woefully sparse.

As we noted here, in Matosantos, the court concluded the state legislature could eliminate redevelopment agencies without violating the California Constitution. While this is a significant victory for property rights advocates, we won’t be counting our chickens just yet. Here are a few things to keep in mind:

  • The California Supreme Court did not drive a stake

…
Continue Reading Schadenfreude, Schlimmbesserung, And The California Supreme Court’s Redevelopment Ruling

As we noted earlier today (“Cal Supreme Court “Redevelops” Redevelopment Agencies“), the California Supreme Court has dealt a stunning blow to the redevelopment-industrial compex in California. Here’s more from media outlets and legal commentators:

  • Governor Jerry Brown issues his shortest press release, ever: “Today’s ruling by the California Supreme Court validates a key component of the state budget and guarantees more than a billion dollars of ongoing funding for schools and public safety.” No call for “excessive celebration” for that one. But you know he’s doing an end-zone dance right about now.

…
Continue Reading California Redevelopment Round Up

In what can only be considered a major takedown of the redevelopment game, the California Supreme Court in a 6-1 opinion (Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye concurring and dissenting), held that the state legislature could eliminate redevelopment agencies without violating the California Constitution. What the lege giveth, the lege may taketh away. It upheld the statute dissolving redevelopment agencies. California Redevelopment Association v. Matosantos, No. S194861 (Dec. 29, 2011).

In an interesting twist, however, the court invalidated the companion statute by which the legislature allowed the redevelopment agencies to continue to exist if they paid into a state fund benefitting schools and special districts. End result: snake eyes for the redevelopement agencies.

We summarize our conclusions concerning the constitutional landscape. The Legislature, pursuant to its plenary power to establish or dissolve local agencies and subdivisions as it sees fit, may, but need not, authorize redevelopment agencies. (Cal. Const., art. IV, §…

Continue Reading Cal Supreme Court “Redevelops” Redevelopment Agencies

As we predicted in our oral argument preview, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals made short work of the issues in City & County of Honolulu v. Sherman, No. 28945 (Dec. 27, 2011). Just two weeks after oral argument, the court issued its opinion (unpublished; again, not a surprise).

The court concluded that the “chapter 38” takings were correctly dismissed, and (in the more interesting part of the opinion), that the trial court should have considered and awarded the property owner the attorneys fees and costs it sustained as a result of an earlier appeal which did not result in an outright landowner victory, but merely a remand for further consideration. On remand, the trial court dismissed the eminent domain case.

The ICA relied on County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship, 120 Haw. 400, 208 P.3d 713 (2009), which held that if an eminent…

Continue Reading Hawaii Ct App: Attorneys Fees And Costs For Eminent Domain Appeals

Now that we’ve decked the halls, its time to clear the decks: the end of 2011 is on the horizon, and in order to start 2012 off on a fresh note, here are opinions of interest lined up in our “to post” queue, but that we’ve not found the time to actually digest and post:

…
Continue Reading Year-End Opinion Dump

ALI-ABAGet ready, it’s that time of year again: the annual eminent domain law conferences by the American Law Institute-American Bar Association, this year to be held in San Diego from January 26-28, 2012.

Here’s the description of Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, the premiere program on condemnation law and related topics:

The power of eminent domain is being reshaped across the nation by court rulings and legislation. Much of the recent court activity and legislation has involved the controversial use, or attempted use, of eminent domain power to take private property for economic development by private parties. Redevelopment, however, is not the only fluid area in takings law. This national course of study addresses those areas where new developments in the law and procedure have and will reshape the practice. Learn what’s new in the cutting-edge areas of eminent domain law and how the practice in this field continues to evolve.

This popular and long running advanced course of study kicks off with a comprehensive update on eminent domain case law and legislation by a preeminent practitioner.

Each morning, the course focuses on hot issues and topics that affect practitioners today.

On Thursday and Friday afternoon, a dual track system addresses important substantive and practice topics in a series of breakout sessions. Registrants can learn about the key issues in substantive takings law from nationally recognized and experienced professionals. On the practice side, registrants can choose from another array of sessions chock full of practice pointers.

The course brings all the right participants together — lawyers, appraisers, condemning agencies, right-of-way professionals, and many others — to share valuable experiences and engage in healthy debate on these cutting-edge issues.

Networking opportunities are scheduled throughout the program, with breakfasts, networking breaks, a reception on Thursday afternoon, and social activities in the evenings arranged by a special Hospitality Committee. Come and meet with colleagues from around the nation, exchange ideas, enjoy the fellowship, and collect more than 16 hours of CLE credits.

This course runs concurrently with ALI-ABA’s annual Course of Study, Condemnation 101: Making the Complex Simple in Eminent Domain. This unique format allows practitioners who are new in the field of eminent domain to network with many of the nation’s most experienced condemnation lawyers, and to benefit from many of those same lawyers serving as their faculty. Special Offer: Attend Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation and bring an associate to Condemnation 101 for 50% off.  ADD TO CART

We’re on the faculty (“The Role of Hawaii’s Unique Property Law in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Takings Cases“with Professor David Callies), so if you attend either course, please stop by and say hi.
Continue Reading ALI-ABA Annual Eminent Domain Conference, January 26-28, 2012, San Diego

DK_greenbag_1If your local jurisdiction has not banned plastic grocery bags (like three of Hawaii’s five counties already do, the Big Island recently joining Maui and Kauai Counties, leaving only the City & County of Honolulu and _____ County* without a ban), trust us, it’s spreading.

Let it not be said that we left you unprepared. After all, hauling your groceries out of the store in a cardboard box, Costco style, is just plain undignified. Not to mention unwieldy.

So for a limited time, we are offering our readers our firm’s reuseable, 100%-from-recycled-materials-big-enough-to-carry-two-bags-of-groceries EnviroBag (photo above, and from another angle here). These blue bags are not your typical cheap recycle bags, but are made of a sturdy woven fiber and have a built-in floor piece. They are quite strong and will hold a ton of stuff.

But we’re not simply giving them away — you’ve got to earn it.…

Continue Reading Plastic Bag Ban? Try Our Holiday Swag Contest

Once again, our old friend and colleague Paul Schwind is following an interesting ongoing case. We’ve been tracking the “Bridge Aina Le`a” litigation, but have not had the time to digest the latest developments in a comprehensive fashion and Paul attended the recent federal court hearing in the federal phase, and has kindly provided us with the details. 

The litigation is a series of two lawsuits that originated in state court in the Third Circuit (Big Island), one an original jurisdiction civil rights lawsuit, the other an administrative appeal (that’s a writ of administrative mandate for you Californians). The State removed the civil rights lawsuit to U.S. District Court in Honolulu and promptly moved to dismiss, and this portion of the case nearly caused us to flash back to our Federal Courts class in law school, since it raised a host of procedural questions such as the…

Continue Reading Guest Post: Federal Courts Flashback – Takings And Vested Rights Challenge To Land Use Commission