Winter storms damaged a seawall which protected a blufftop, oceanfront home. The owners, not surprisingly, wanted to rebuild the wall to protect their home. The Coastal Commission, as is its wont, saw this as an opportunity to extract some goodies from the owners. So it granted a limited-term permit to rebuild the wall, conditioned on
Cases And Links From Today’s American Planning Association’s 2017 Planning Law Review
Here are links to the cases and materials we spoke about today during our portions of the APA’s 2017 Planning Law Review webinar:
- Justice Kennedy’s Social Justice Warrior Test For Takings Clause “Property” In Murr v. Wisconsin
- The Federal Circuit’s Lost Tree decision (cert denied just after Murr, so this should be seen as a
Friday, Aug 11, 2017, New York City: Chair-Elect Reception, Unpacking Murr – ABA State & Local Govt Law Section
If my colleagues don’t wise up and change their minds before August, I am slated to become Chair of the ABA’s Section of State and Local Government Law (which, by the way, includes an Eminent Domain Committee, Chaired by Howard Roston, and co-Chaired by Kelly Walsh and John Peloso). On Friday, August 11, at
Your Post-Murr Reading List
There’s a lot of buzz about “what’s next” after Murr v. Wisconsin, and what this case may augur for regulatory takings. There are already quite a few discussions and analysis panels scheduled, including these three in which we’re participating:
- The American Planning Association’s annual Planning Law Review (Wednesday, July 5, 2017), which will include
The Connecticut Supreme Court “Gets” The Larger Parcel Issue: It’s About Joint Use Of The Two Parcels
Here’s the opinion of the Connecticut Supreme Court in a case we’ve been following, Barton v. City of Norwalk, No. SC 19671 (July 4, 2017).
As we noted in our earlier post where we detailed the facts, the case involved two non-contiguous parcels, one of which was used for a parking lot
U. Wisconsin Property Rights & Land Use Symposium (July 20, 2017)
If you are within striking distance of Madison next month, consider attending the “Property Rights and Land Use in Wisconsin” symposium at the U. Wisconsin Law School.
This is a one-day conference, and as you might expect, one of the big focuses of the day will be the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in
New Article: “Property” And Investment-Backed Expectations In Ridesharing Regulatory Takings Claims
Earlier this year, I had the honor of moderating a panel speaking about transportation sharing legal issues at the University of Hawaii Law Review‘s sharing economy symposium. The editors have been hard at work since, and the symposium issue is being printed as we speak.
They also permitted me to pen this little missive,
The Larger Parcel, Eminent Domain, And The World’s Best Pastrami Sandwich
So how does a property lawyer salve the wounds of the last few days, which saw a really bad Supreme Court ruling in a regulatory takings case, and shortly thereafter the justices deny review of your just compensation petition while you just happen to be in Los Angeles, California?
Langer’s Deli, that’s how.
Cert Denied In Lost Tree (Relevant Parcel)
After Murr, the pending cert petition in Lost Tree was D.O.A., and today, the Court made it official. Cert denied. We thought that the Federal Circuit’s denominator analysis was the better one (although pretty much anything would have been better than what Justice Kennedy and his Immortals came up with in Murr).
Not Satisfied With Merely Taking Land For Rail, Now The City Wants Blood
Here’s the Honolulu Star-Advertiser latest story on the Honolulu rail authority’s condemnation of the property of Blood Bank of Hawaii, “Blood bank sues over city push to take land for rail.”
The state’s lone blood supplier is pushing back in court against the city’s efforts to acquire the land fronting its Dillingham Boulevard