Second Circuit Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the nominee to fill Justice David Souter’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court, has served as either a federal District or Circuit Judge for 18 years during which she’s either authored or sat on panels in cases involving eminent domain or regulatory takings. Here’s an admittedly unscientific sampling of those
It Is Good To Be The King: Councilmembers Personally Immune From Charges Of Retaliatory Eminent Domain Abuse
You may remember Mel Brooks’ History of the World: Part I, where Brooks, as King Louis XIV, turns to the camera and exclaims “it’s good to be the King!” each time he takes advantage of one of his subjects.
Well, it turns out that it really is good.
Minn Court Of Appeals: Redevelopment Agency Exceeded Delegation Of Eminent Domain Authority
In Eagan Economic Development Authority v. U-Haul Company of Minnesota, No. A08-0767 (May 19, 2009), the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that when a delegation of eminent domain power from a municipality requires a redevelopment agency to enter into a development agreement before acquiring property, the agency is without power to take property until
Cal. Court of Appeal: No Public Use In “Case Of Condemn First, Decide What To Do With The Property Later”
A very important decision by California’s Third District Court of Appeal, exposing the fantasy behind the Kelo majority’s conclusion that decisions to take property are most often the result of an objective process and comprehensive and carefully considered planning. In City of Stockton v. Marina Towers LLC, No. C054495 (Feb. 13, 2008), the court
Zoning And Land Use Round-Up
A collection of interesting reports on land use and zoning topics:
- Mission residents reject American Apparel (San Francisco Chronicle) – “Congratulations to the residents of Valencia Street. After a rowdy and sometimes misleading campaign, they managed to stop American Apparel – a socially conscious, popular, American-run clothing store – from moving into one of the
Even More On Hawaii County’s Impact Fee … Whoops, I Mean “Fair Share”
Thanks to Kona Blogger Aaron Stene for sending this next item my way, a follow up to the previous two days’ reports from West Hawaii Today (posted here and here) about Hawaii County’s so-called “fair share” exaction system. In “Council reaffirms belief in fair share legality,” WHT reports:
The county’s Corporation Counsel
More On Hawaii County’s “Fair Share” Impact Fees
Following up on yesterday’s post about the West Hawaii Today series on the legality of Hawaii County’s “fair share” impact fee system, the paper posts three stories about the issue:
- How much, for what and when? (“The county may have illegally collected $7.4 million in fair share assessments from housing developers since the early
West Hawaii Today Series: Is County [“Fair Share” And Impact Fee] Practice Legal?
Worthwhile article today from West Hawaii Today (the daily newspaper of the Kona side of the Big Island), “Is county practice legal?” The story details the County’s practice of demanding “fair share” payments from property owners and developers who wish to make use of their properties and seek County approvals:
The fair share
California Court of Appeal: No TKO Of Eminent Domain Challenge (Video)
A delay in publication of a legal notice won’t knock out a challenge to the legality of a city’s blight designation.
In Community Youth Athletic Center v. City of National City, No. D052584 (Jan. 22, 2009), the California Fourth District Court of Appeal held that the trial court abused its discretion when it dismissed
Cal. Court of Appeals Revisits (Sort of) Landgate: Of Regulatory Takings, Means-End Analysis, and Due Process
In a lengthy (70 page) opinion, the California Court of Appeals (Sixth District), in Shaw v. County of Santa Cruz, No. H031108 (filed Dec. 19, 2008, ordered published Jan. 16, 2009), held that the government’s denial of a ministerial permit did not amount to a regulatory taking.
The opinion sets forth a long factual