text
Gurrobat v. HTH Corp., No. SCAP-12-0000764 (Haw. Mar. 27, 2015)
How Are They (I Mean *We*) Going To Pay For Honolulu’s Rail?
The short answer: taxes.
[Update #1: a report from last night’s community meeting, “Railing Against Honolulu’s $6 Billion Rail Project” (“Honolulu Mayor Kirk Caldwell and his top transit official took their licks from a decidedly anti-rail crowd during a boisterous town hall meeting at Washington Middle School on Wednesday.”
Update #2: “
Pacific Business News Details The Rail’s Impact On Honolulu Property
The cover story in Pacific Business News‘ recent edition, “Honolulu rail transit’s eminent domain” is worth reading. Most importantly, the PBN staff created maps which show how much property is targeted for acquisition, and where it is located, precisely. Yes, the full story is behind a partial paywall, but as we said
Amici Brief: Property Owners Have Right Of Direct Access To Highways That Can’t Be Regulated Away
Here’s the amici brief on behalf of Central Oregon Builders Association, Oregonians in Action, and Owners’ Counsel of America in a case being considered by the Oregon Supreme Court, State of Oregon v. Alderwoods (Oregon), Inc., No. S062766.
In an eminent domain action to improve Highway 99W in Tigard, Oregon, the DOT condemned Alderwoods’
NJ Retreats From Curtailed “Blight” Takings Standard
In Gallenthin [Realty Development, Inc. v. Borough of Paulsboro, 191 N.J. 344 (2007)] requires, namely a degree of ‘deterioration or stagnation that negatively affects surrounding areas’ by promoting conditions that can develop into blight.
nn Download A19136264MainStreetvHackensack, No.
62-64 Main Street, LLC v. Mayor and City of Hackensack, No. 072699 (N.J.
State Appeals NC “Map Act” Takings Case
In Kirby v North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015), the North Carolina held that state’s “Map Act,” which gives the DOT the ability to designate property for future highway use and prevent its development in the meantime, was a taking. There was great shouting and gnashing of teeth that making
Cal App (Unpub): Temporary Prohibition On Rebuilding In A Landslide Zone Is A Taking
Brost v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B246153 (Mar. 25, 2015) is an unpublished opinion, but (1) we hope the property owners ask the court to publish it, and (2) even if it remains unpublished, it is worth reading, because the court correctly applies both Williamson County‘s futility exception, and the “background principles”
What Were They Thinking, Part II: DOT Can’t Take Advantage Of “Scrivener’s Error” To Avoid Eminent Domain
The Wisconsin Court of Appeals’ decision in Somers USA, LLC v. Wisconsin Dep’t of Transportation, No. 2014AP1092 (Mar. 25, 2015), is the second case we’re posting today that has us asking — just what was the government thinking?
This kerfuffle resulted from the DOT trying to take advantage of Somers’ scrivener’s error, made when
What Were They Thinking, Part I: City Stealing Dirt Is A Taking
Here’s the first of two cases we’re going to post today, both with the same theme — what was the government thinking?
The facts in Irwin v. City of Minot, No. 20140217 (Mar. 24, 2015), are similar to cases we’ve covered before, the government’s claim that it took property during the course of an
Pacific Business News Report On Eminent Domain And The Honolulu Rail
We can’t reproduce the entire interview, and the link to the online version is behind a partial paywall, but here are the highlights of a recent interview, where A. Kam Napier, the Editor-in- Chief of Pacific Business News, came by and chatted with us about eminent domain, property rights, and the Honolulu rail