January 2015

No, it’s not about the weird dude down at the Planning Department, but a new (draft) article by two familiar property lawprofs, Lee Fennell and Eduardo Penalver. Here’s the abstract:

How can the Constitution protect landowners from government exploitation without disabling the machinery that protects landowners from each other? The Supreme Court left this central question unanswered — and indeed unasked — in Koontz v St. Johns River Water Management District. The Court’s exactions jurisprudence, set forth in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, Dolan v. City of Tigard, and now Koontz, requires the government to satisfy demanding criteria for certain bargains — or proposed bargains — implicating the use of land. Yet because virtually every restriction, fee, or tax associated with the ownership or use of land can be cast as a bargain, the Court must find some way to hive off the domain of exactions…

Continue Reading New Article: “Exactions Creep”

Land users, please read the California Court of Appeal’s opinion in Woody’s Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, No.G050155 (Jan. 29, 2015), which starts off with this straightforward summary:

The language of the law is replete with synonyms for fairness: due process, equal protection, good faith, harmless error are all ways of expressing our commitment to fairness. The City Council of Newport Beach violated at least two basic principles of fairness in overturning a permit application approved by the city’s planning commission. It should come as no surprise, then, that their action also violated California law.

First basic principle: You cannot be a judge in your own case. In this case Councilmember Mike Henn, having already voiced his “strong[]” opposition to Woody’s application, was allowed to appeal the approval of Woody’s application to the very body on which he sits, where he did his best to convince his…

Continue Reading Cal App: Zoning Authorities Need To “Play Fair”

The wheels of justice may grind slowly, but they do grind. Yesterday, the Ninth Circuit granted a motion we filed back in June 2013, and permitted us to file this amicus brief on behalf of the Western Manufactured Housing Communities Association in a case that is scheduled to be argued in mid-February 2015, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749.  

The case is a federal court challenge to a California wine-country municipality‘s decision to deny a rent increase for a mobilehome park subject to the city’s rent control ordinance. The complaint alleged that the city’s failure to allow the ground lease rent to increase to $624 violated the park owner’s rights under the takings, due process, and equal protection clauses. The District Court eventually dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief under Rule 12(b)(6), because, among other things, the park …

Continue Reading 9th Circuit Amicus Brief: How To State A Valid Claim After Lingle – Regulatory Taking, Private Taking, Or Due Process?

Sorrentino v. Godinez, No. 13-3421 (Jan. 23, 2015) was a lawsuit by prisoners complaining that several items which they purchased from the prison commisary — a fan and a typewriter — were later declared by the warden to be prohibited contraband.

Under the new rules, their property was “removed,” and the prisoners given options for what they wanted done with the items: destroy them, store them, or send them to someone on the outside at the prison’s expense. They didn’t like these options and instead sued, claiming a taking, among other things. The District Court dismissed with prejudice.

The Seventh Circuit affirmed the result, concluding that the plaintiffs’ failure to avail themselves of the available remedy under Illinois law for obtaining compensation in the Illinois Court of Claims for a physical taking was fatal: “[t]he latter rule is what dooms Sorrentino’s claims. Illinois provides such a procedure, but he …

Continue Reading 7th Circuit Tosses Prisoner’s Takings Claim Under Williamson County’s State Procedures Rule

This is a longer post, but since we think this case may be going further and is worth watching, we’re going to hit it up in some detail.

In City of Chicago v. Eychaner, No. 05L050792 (Jan. 21, 2015), the Illinois Appellate Court upheld the taking of private vacant land near the Chicago Loop (Eychaner’s Land on the map below) so that it could be transferred to the owners of a nearby chocolate factory (Blommer’s Factory).

The court viewed this “A-to-B” taking as merely a part of an area redevelopment and tax increment finance plan, which would keep the chocolate factory from moving out as the area gentrified.


1131833

The opinion contains a long recitation of the reasons for the taking, how the Planned Manufacturing District (PMD) was designed to “protect[] the 2,800 industrial jobs located in the area, [to] prevent[] residential encroachment on the existing manufacturing facilities, and…

Continue Reading The Chicago Way: City Taking Non-Blighted Property For Economic Development Was Not Pretextual Because … Studies

The Township of Ocean, New Jersey downzoned the plaintiffs’ residentially-and-commercially-zoned land to “Environmental Conservation.” The EC district allows “only very low density residential development or other low intensity uses,” with a minimum lot size of 20 acres. 

The plaintiffs, who own 34 acres subject the EC zoning, challenged the zoning ordinance, asserting it was “arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious and illegal,” and that it resulted in an inverse condemnation because it prohibited all uses.

In Griepenburg v. Township of Ocean, No. A-55-13 (Jan. 22, 2015), the New Jersey Supreme Court seemed to agree that there is little chance the property owners can make any use of their land: “[a]lthough plaintiffs’ single-family residence conforms to the ED district’s density requirement of one unit per twenty acres, no further development of their property within the EC district is permitted under the new zoning.” Slip op. at 13. 

The Supreme Court, however, held that the…

Continue Reading NJ: Environmental Preservation Zoning Might Prohibit Development, But Owner Must First Try To Develop

Last we checked in with the Bridge Aina Lea case, the Ninth Circuit said it would hold off on a decision until the Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in the associated state court litigation (see 9th Cir Says “Let’s Wait” On Hawaii Supreme Court To Rule In Bridge Aina Lea).

This is the federal court side of a case in which a developer is suing the State Land Use Commission (and certain Commissioners in their individual capacities) after the LUC reclassified its land on the Big Island from urban to agricultural use. Aina Lea filed two actions in state court: an administrative appeal under the administrative procedures act, and an original jurisdiction civil rights complaint. The defendants removed the latter action to federal court. The District Court, however, abstained. After oral arguments in the Ninth Circuit, the panel withdrew the case from submission to allow the Hawaii Supreme Court…

Continue Reading 9th Cir: No Need For Pullman Abstention In Aina Lea After Hawaii Supreme Court Ruling

AFTER

Here at invesecondemnation.com, we do our best to bring you timely decisons on cases of interest from around the nation and the world. But today we’ve outdone ourselves, because we have an opinion from the Connecticut Court of Appeals, issued … next week: Dep’t of Transportation v. Cheriha, LLC, No. 155AP144 (Jan. 27, 2015).

The case involved the condemnation of a parcel in New Britain at the intersection of Beaver and Washington Streets shown above in the “after” condition. The trial court did not allow the property owner to introduce the testimony of one Dr. Sheik Ahmed, who was prepared to testify that 17 months before the taking he had submitted a letter of intent to buy the parcel for a price even in excess of the property owner’s appraiser’s trial valuation. The court of appeals held that it was proper to exclude Dr. Ahmed’s testimony…

Continue Reading Back To The Future With The Connecticut Court Of Appeals: Prospective Purchaser Cannot Testify As Expert About Valuation