This post has nothing whatsoever to do directly with land use law or property rights, but there’s an interesting article on the San Francisco Chronicle’s web site that is too good to resist. “Zen and the art of lawyering” reports on Bay Area lawyers who combat job-related stress by meditation.
Articles and publications
▪ Vested Rights/Zoning Estoppel Dispute Brewing on Kauai
Two stories in today’s Honolulu papers, “Wal-Mart fights Kauai ban on ‘big-box’ stores,” “Wal-Mart says it will fight for Kauai expansion,” contain all the buzzwords indicating a vested rights and zoning estoppel dispute may be on the horizon. The Advertiser writes:
A recent Kaua’i County ban on new “big-box” stores shouldn’t …
▪ Inversecondemnation.com Reviewed
My thanks to Walt Harvey at Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for posting a very kind review of my work and this blog in Grass in Review:
When Robert is not wearing his private property ‘Superman’ suit he’s apracticing attorney with Damon, Key, Leong, Kupchak & Hastert andhas been selected by his peers to be…
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review
As a way of saying “aloha” to 2006, I’ve summarized the land use lawhighlights (orlowlights, depending on your point of view) from the Hawaii SupremeCourt, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, roughly inchronological order. Topics include shorelines, eminent domain,environmental impact statements, RLUIPA, vested rights, and land uselitigation procedures.
- Depends What the Meaning of “Shall” Is: Leslie v. Bd. of Appeals, County of Hawaii (HAWSCT) (nondiscretionary actions, shoreline area boundaries)
- Environmental Assessments, Early and Probably Often: Sierra Club v. Office of Planning, State of Hawaii (HAWSCT) (environmental assessments, boundary amendments)
- Eminent Domain and Land Reform Revisited: City & County of Honolulu v. Sherman (HAWSCT) (eminent domain, RLUIPA)
- What to do if the Government Changes its Mind: Arrow of Time: Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii, 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 17 (Feb. 2006) (vested rights)
- Hawaii Water Law is Not a Federal Case: Maui Tomorrow v. State of Hawaii (HAWSCT) (attorneys fees, water rights)
- No Leg to Stand On: Keahole Defense Coalition, Inc. v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res. (HAWSCT) (standing, what is a “property” interest)
- The Supreme Court Muddies the Clean Water Act: Rapanos v. United States (SCOTUS) (Clean Water Act jurisdiction)
- Return to Sender – Elvis and Notice: Jones v. Flowers (SCOTUS) (due process notice to property owners)
- What is a “Contested Case?” – Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm’n (HAWSCT) (administrative appeals, contested cases)
- Who Protects the Public Trust? – Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners (HAWSCT) (water pollution, public trust)
- Contesting Contested Cases: Hui Kako Aina Hoopulapula v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res. (HAWSCT) (administrative appeals, contested cases)
- RLUIPA and Local Land Use: Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter (9th Cir.) (RLUIPA and local land use)
- Hawaii Eminent Domain Compendium (eminent domain)
- Shoreline Tales: Diamond v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res. (HAWSCT) (CZMA shoreline certifications)
- Voters Nationwide (But Not Hawaii) Enact Eminent Domain Reform (property rights, eminent domain)
- New Appellate Track: In re Water Use Permit Applications [Waiahole] (HAWSCT) (appellate jurisdiction, water rights)
- Honolulu “Fixed Guideway” Mass Transit Approved (eminent domain)
If you think I missed any key cases or events, please email me.
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Hawaii Eminent Domain Compendium Published
In September, the ABA Section on Litigation (Committee on Condemnation, Zoning and Land Use) published Law and Procedure of Eminent Domain in the 50 States, a state-by-state summary of each jurisdiction’s eminent domain laws and cases. I authored the chapter on Hawaii.
Topics covered include who hasthe power to take, sources for condemnation authority…
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: What to do if the Government Changes its Mind
A touch of self-promotion. In February 2006, the University of Hawaii Law Review published an article written by me and my Damon Key colleagues Ken Kupchak and Greg Kugle.
The title “Arrow of Time: Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii” pretty much sums up the contents. The article seeks to…
▪ Eminent Domain Compendium Published
I have recently completed the Hawaii chapter in a compendium on the eminent domain laws of each of the fifty states entitled (not surprisingly): Law and Procedure of Eminent Domain in the 50 States.
Each chapter of this publication is devoted to a summary of a single state’s eminent domain laws, and provides the basic tools for understanding each jurisdiction’s condemnation law, including who has the power to take, sources for condemnation authority, the rules of just compensation, and the procedural aspects of eminent domain litigation.
The compendium is sponsored and published by the ABA Section on Litigation (Committee on Condemnation, Zoning and Land Use).
The individual state chapters, mine included, are posted for download for ABA members here.
▪ Law Review Article on Vested Rights and Development Agreements
The University of Hawaii Law Review has published an article on vested rights and development agreements, authored by me and my Damon Key colleagues Ken Kupchak and Greg Kugle.
“Vested rights” is a body of law designed to protect property owners who rely upon government assurances — often in the form of development permits — if the government subsequently attempts to change its mind, or revoke the issued permits.
The title of the article is Arrow of Time: Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii, and the citation is 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 17 (2004).
Although the article carries a date of 2004, it was published in February 2006, since the U.H. Law Review was a tad behind schedule.
Here’s a summary of the article, from its Introduction:
The modern land regulation and development process is a complex, lengthy, expensive, and very often uncertain undertaking. The uncertainty is compounded by the ability of the government to change the regulations applicable to property after the owner has begun planning or building but has not completed construction.
Attempting to balance these competing interests, the courts have responded by creating the doctrines of vested rights and zoning estoppel. These closely-related principles permit the government to retain flexibility in land use planning only if a property owner has not proceeded sufficiently along the development path that it would be unconstitutional or unfair to prevent it from completion.
Once an owner’s rights have “vested,” the owner possesses development rights…if the government is estopped, it is prevented from applying any future incompatible, albeit legal, regulations to the property. Vested rights and zoning estoppel thus counterbalance the government’s unfettered ability to use its police power to regulate land uses, providing some insulation of the land development process from shifting political winds.
This Article details the development of the doctrines by the Hawai’i courts and the application of vested rights and zoning estoppel in Hawai’i land use litigation. It also discusses remedies, and analyzes alternatives to vested rights and zoning estoppel litigation such as development agreements, land swaps, and transferred development rights.
It is a fairly comprehensive treatment of vested rights and zoning estoppel law in Hawaii, and compares our courts’ approach with that of fellow jurisdictions. It also suggests some areas where the law can be filled out more fully in Hawaii.
Finally, it deals with the interplay between development agreements and vested rights. You can’t understand one without understanding the other.
If you’d like a reprint of the complete article, drop me an e-mail.
Continue Reading ▪ Law Review Article on Vested Rights and Development Agreements
