An interesting story from today’s San Francisco Chronicle, forwarded by a colleague. In Bolinas oceanfront parcel $3.9 million, no building, Peter Fimrite reports on a 47 acre parcel of land in the notoriously I-got-mine Marin County, California community of Bolinas:
Kidson bought the land for $250,000 from the Smadbecks’ heir Louis Smadbeck
In Colony Cove Properties, LLC v. City of Carson, No. 09-57039 (Mar. 28, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s dismissal of a property owner’s claim that the City of Carson’s mobilehome rent control ordinance is a taking. The District Court dismissed the facial takings claim because
Update: here‘s the Respondent’s Brief, filed yesterday (courtesy of Election Law Blog – the author is one of the counsel for Mr. Carrigan)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In Comm’n on Ethics of the State of Nevada v. Carrigan, No. 10-568 (cert. granted Jan 7, 2011), the U.S. Supreme Court is considering whether a state statute
This just in: in Trinity Park, L.P. v. City of Sunnyvale, No. H035573 (Mar. 24, 2011), the California Court of Appeal (6th District) held that the City’s approval of the property owner’s residential development, conditioned upon the developer reserving 12 1/2% of the units for sale at below the market rate, was not a
In Alto Eldorado Partnership v. County of Santa Fe, No. 09-2214 (Mar. 16, 2011), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit held that a regulatory takings challenge to an affordable housing exaction was not ripe under the second prong of the Williamson County test.The “final decision” prong was not at
Last Friday, the property owners filed this cert petition, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (9th Cir., Dec. 22, 2010) (en banc). In that opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance did not work a regulatory taking under Penn Central. The core of the majority opinion is based on the notion that the Guggenheims did not have “investment-backed expectations” because the regulations were in place when they purchased their property.
We covered the en banc oral arguments here, and our resource page on the case is here
The petition presents a single question:
In Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), this Court rejected the proposition that “postenactment purchasers cannot challenge a regulation under the Takings Clause.” Id. at 626. In this case, a divided en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit distinguished Palazzolo on the basis that the plaintiff there had acquired the property by operation of law (instead of purchasing it) and held that the fact that petitioners had purchased the property subject to the challenged regulation was “fatal to [petitioners’] claim.”
Is the purchaser of property subject to a regulatory restriction foreclosed from challenging the restriction as a violation of the Takings Clause?
More to come.
Cert Petition, Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 10-1125
Continue Reading Cert Petition In Guggenheim: Can A Post-Regulation Purchaser Bring A Takings Claim?
Thousands of years from now, when future archaeologists and historians are reconstructing our civilization from the ruins, it is easy to imagine how they might misinterpret the function of shopping malls. Rather than climate-controlled centralized temples of consumerism, or teen hangouts with abundant parking, the historical record might suggest that malls were august civic centers
Honolulu attorney Jay Fidell (who also produces Think Tech Hawaii) writes a regular column in the Honolulu Star-Advertiser. This week, he focuses on land use in “Labyrinthine land-use law suffocating isle economy,” where he writes:
Everyone knows our state, like others, is in a fiscal and economic crisis. We need to
At yesterday’s debate (video archived here) sponsored by Honolulu Civil Beat, “Knowing the Past, Shaping the Future” about the problems that have arisen in Hawaii in the time since the publication of the book The Price of Paradise 20 years ago, U. Hawaii lawprof David Callies revealed a stunning statistic. He noted that
Anyone who is a regular reader of this blog knows Mike Berger. If you don’t immediately recognize his name just check the reports of decisions because you certainly know his cases, which include: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (2002), City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd. (1999), Preseault