A round up of posts of possible interest to readers:
The 18-page lawsuit names as defendants thecounty of Kaua‘i, the Planning Commission, and the Planning Departmentand its director. It asks for the Koloa Creekside Estates …
Jesse Souki has some interesting thoughts on the recent Intermediate Court of Appeals decision in E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 27940 (Dec. 24, 2007), over at his Hawaii Land Use Law blog:
Prior to the instant case, Hawaii courts strained to find a contested case before…
Government Gone Wild: the sad case of Wilkie v. Robbins. In perhaps the low point of 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that alandowner who was subject to systematic harassment by governmentofficials because he had the temerity to refuse to give up a publiceasement on his land without just compensation did not have acomprehensive…
Although the decision is not about land use, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ decision in E & J Lounge Operating Co. v. City and County of Honolulu, No. 27940 (Dec. 24, 2007) is worth a read since it analyzes when an agency is required to hold a “contested case” (an administrative trial) in…
The US District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed most of the counts of the Maui Vacation Rental Association’s complaint against the County of Maui. The court held that MVRA had the right to bring suit on behalf of its members, but dismissed — without leave to amend — the substantive and procedural due…
As noted here, the US District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed most of the counts of the Maui Vacation Rental Association’s complaint against the County of Maui. Here’s the court’s written order.
Hat tip to Supreme Court of Hawaii Blog for posting a Maui County press release announcing that on December 17, 2007, the US District Court for the District of Hawaii dismissed, for failure to state a claim, most of the allegations in the lawsuit by the Maui Vacation Rental Association. The Maui News reports the…
The $37 million inverse condemnation judgment against the City of Half Moon Bay, California by the US District Court for the Northern District of California is having some repercussions, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:
Under the worst-casescenario, officials say, Half Moon Bay would become the first Bay Areacity forced to dissolve, and the
…
Here are the latest filings in the federal lawsuit by the Maui Vacation Rental Association against the County of Maui. The court asked for further briefing on the due process claim. The plaintiff’s supplemental brief is here, and the County’s supplemental brief is here.
Previous posts on the case, including prior briefs and…
Thanks to Timothy Sandefur at PLF on Eminent Domain for calling attention to the Colorado Supreme Court’s opinion in Wheat Ridge Urban Renewal Auth. v. Cornerstone Group XXII, LLC, No. 06SC591 (Dec. 3, 2007).
In that case, the court refused to order a redevelopment agency to condemn private property and turn it over to a developer to build a Walgreen’s store. The court held that judges have no authority to compel an agency to take property even if the agency had entered into a contract with the developer in which it agreed to do so. While not expressly relying on separation of powers, the court’s opinion clearly was based on its concern with preserving the agency’s discretion to condemn (or not condemn) private property. See slip op. at 21-22. The bottom line is that in Colorado, courts have no jurisdiction to fashion a specific performance remedy requiring the government to exercise a sovereign power.
Professor Ilya Somin calls the victory “Pyrrhic” in his analysis of the decision, suggesting the court’s “reasoning is likely to undermine property rights in the long run.” While the opinion is often opaque and many of its premises difficult to fathom, I’m not so sure the case should be considered so poorly. After all, the court reached a good result, although its analysis ventures into areas it need not have gone. Continue Reading Court Has No Power to Order Government to Take Property
