Here’s the latest in the Maui affordable housing case now being litigated in the U.S. District Court, Kamaole Pointe Development LP v. County of Maui, No. 07-00447 DAE (D. Haw.). The case is a challenge to the County of Maui’s “workforce housing”ordinance, enacted in in 2006, which imposes a40% to 50% affordable requirement on
ABA Section Of State & Local Gov’t Law – Condemnation Law Committee
These past few days, I’ve been attending the annual meeting of the ABA in Chicago. It was a chance to meet new colleagues, associate faces with those whom I’ve only had e-contact, and reacquaint myself with old friends.
I’m also the new Chair of the Condemnation Law Committee of the State & Local Government
Must A Property Owner Seek A Change In The Law In Order To Ripen A Takings Claim?
In a notable case worth following, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals is considering a new appeal involving whether a per se regulatory takings claim is ripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985), and whether in order to ripen a takings claim, a property
HAWSCT On Nonconforming Uses: You Can’t Change What You Didn’t Establish
What do you call an appeal in which the Supreme Court doesn’t address any of your five questions presented?
If you are the petitioner’s attorneys in Save Diamond Head Waters LLC v. Hans Hedemann Surf, Inc., No. 27804 (July 13, 2009), you’d call it “victory.”
In that case — which was
Report On Residency Challenge Appeal: Is Intending To Live Somewhere Enough To Be “Residing” There?
In High court ruling on residency requested, the Maui News reports on Dupree v. Hiraga, No. 29464, the appeal of the decision by the State Board of Registration (County of Maui) which concluded that a Maui County councilperson who registered as a Lanai resident is actually a resident of Maui.
Attorneys for a
Election Law: Is Intending To Live Somewhere Enough To Be “Residing” There?
Yesterday, my Damon Key colleagues and I filed this brief on behalf of a Lanai voter, asking the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals to affirm a decision by the State Board of Registration (County of Maui) which concluded that a Maui County councilperson who registered as a Lanai resident is actually a resident of Maui.
Materials And Links From Today’s Water Law Seminar
To those who attended today’s seminar “Integrating Water Law and Land Use Planning,” thank you. The materials from my session on “Water Rights, Property Rightsand the Law of Settled Expectations” are below.
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) – the Hawaii Kai Marina case – physical invasions, regulatory takings, and interference
New Cert Petition – Corps’ Clean Water Jurisdiction Determination Is Reviewable Now
An Alaska borough has sought Supreme Court review of the Ninth Circuit’s determination in Fairbanks North Star Borough v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 543 F.3d 586 (9th Cir. 2008) (a decision we analyzed here). The cert petition is posted here (No. 08-1052).
The Ninth Circuit held a property owner has
Materials From Hawaii Land Use Law Conference
To those who attended Thursday’s and Friday’s conference, thank you. Here are the cases and other materials I mentioned in my portion:
- Shoreline setbacks and equitable estoppel – Brescia v. North Shore Ohana 115 Haw. 477, 168 P.3d 929 (2007)
- State shoreline setback – Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-43
- Counties have authority to enact their own setbacks – Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-45
- No private right of action to enforce zoning – The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, in Pono v. Molokai Ranch, Ltd.,119 Haw. 163, 194 P.3d 1126 (2008), held that a private party had nostanding to enforce the state’s land use laws. The Hawaii Supreme Courtrejected certiorari review of the case. Disclosure: we represent thelandowner. More here.
- Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, the appealnow pending in the Intermediate Court of Appeals. The issue in thatcase is whether the state or littoral landowners are entitled toownership of accreted land. In “Act 73,” the legislature declared thatshoreline land naturally accreted belongs to the State of Hawaii and ispublic property. The act overturned the age-old rule of shorelineaccretion and erosion, which held that beachfront owners lose ownershipof land when it erodes, but gain it when it accretes. Instead of thesebalanced rules, Act 73 made the erosion/accretion equation one-sided:the State wins every time. We filed an amicus brief in the appeal, acopy of which is available here.
- Substantive due process in the Ninth Circuit after Lingle – The Ninth Circuit Rediscovers Substantive Due Process in Land Use Cases
- County of Hawaii v. C & J Coupe Family Limited Partnership, No. 28882 (Dec. 24, 2008) – public use, pretext, and damages for failed taking
The majority opinion by Justice Acoba, joined by Justices Nakayama and Duffy is posted here:
We hold that (1) a landowner in a condemnationaction is entitled to damages under HRS § 101-27 where the property atissue is not finally taken in the context of a particular condemnationproceeding, irrespective of whether the government attempts to take theland through subsequent condemnation proceedings; (2) abatement doesnot apply where the relief sought in two concurrent actions is not thesame; and (3) although our courts afford substantial deference to thegovernment’s asserted public purpose for a taking in a condemnationproceeding, where there is evidence that the asserted purpose ispretextual, courts should consider a landowner’s defense of pretext. Therefore, (1) automatic denial of statutory damages under HRS §101-27in Condemnation 1 is vacated and the case remanded for a determinationof damages, (2) the court’s conclusion that Condemnation 2 was notabated by Condemnation 2 is vacated and the case remanded for adetermination of whether the public purpose asserted in Condemnation 2was pretextual.
Slip op. at 5. Here’s the concurring and dissenting opinion by Chief Justice Moon joined by Justice Levinson. The briefs in the case are available here: Opening Brief, Answering Brief of the County of Hawaii, Reply Brief. Disclosure: we represent the property owner.
- “Arrow of Time, Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii’ (published by the U. Hawaii Law Review in Feb. 2006). Drop me an email, and I will email you a pdf, or send you a hard copy (tell me which).
Continue Reading Materials From Hawaii Land Use Law Conference
2008 Land Use In Review: Contested Cases Refined
The Hawaii Supreme Court clarified when an agency hearing will be deemed to be a “contested case” in E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. Liquor Comm’n of the City & County of Honolulu,No. 27940 (July 29, 2008). The issue was whether, as the caption of the caseindicates, a public hearing before the Honolulu