No doubt about it, the biggest Hawaii-centric land use related story this year was the continuing saga of the Hawaii Superferry. The case resulted in above-the-fold headlines, blogs devoted to the issue, and at least two trips to the Hawaii Supreme Court. We even live blogged the oral arguments. A summary of the case is
Upcoming Teleconference On Land Use Exactions
Next Tuesday (January 12, 2010) from 1-2pm Eastern Time, I’ll be speaking at a teleconference on land use exactions for members of the International Municipal Lawyers Association. I’ll be the guest of nationally-renown land use law experts Professor Dan Mandelker and attorney Dwight Merriam.
More information here.
Balkanizing The Beach: The Practical Consequences Of Maunaula Bay Beach Ohana 28
This post deals with the practical impacts of the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals’ recent decision in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii,No. 28175 (Dec. 30, 2009). [Disclosure: we filed an amicus brief supporting the property owners,available here.]
First, some background for those who have not been following our recent
HAWICA: No “Vested Right” To Beachfront Accretion
This just in: the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Maunalua Bay Beach Ohana 28 v. State of Hawaii, No. 28175, a case we recently analyzed here.
We conclude that (1) Plaintiffs and the class they represent had no vested property rights to future accretions to their oceanfront land
Cal Supremes: Denial Of CUP For Private Airport Not A “Project” Requiring Environmental Review
Here’s one for all you CEQA mavens.
The California Supreme Court has determined that a denial of a conditional use permit to operate a private airport south of Sacramento is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act. Sunset Sky Ranch Pilots Ass’n v. County of Sacramento, No. S165861 (Dec. 28, 2009).
Elk
Taking Accretion By Legal Erosion: Summary Of The Oral Arguments In The Hawaii Beach Takings Case (Podcast)
With all that has been going on lately (SCOTUS arguments in the judicial takings case, New York’s courts issuing two big eminent domain decisions, etc.), we haven’t had the opportunity to summarize the oral argument in a very important Hawaii case.
Last month, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals heard arguments in the
New Book – Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights
Next month, the ABA Section of State & Local Government Law will be publishing a book by Professor Rachelle Alterman, Takings International: A Comparative Perspective on Land Use Regulations and Compensation Rights:
Everywhere in the world, land use law and regulation affect realproperty values–either increasing or decreasing them. Regulatorytakings is the potential raw
Oral Argument Preview, Part II: Hawaii Supreme Court Considers Whether A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Triggers A Supplemental EIS
This is Part II of our preview of the oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu, the case in which the IntermediateCourt of Appeals held that unless the project changes, a supplementalEIS is not required under the Hawaii Environmental Policy Act, Haw.Rev. Stat. ch. 343.
In this post
Oral Argument Preview, Part I: Hawaii Supreme Court Considers Whether A Change In “Context,” But Not The Project, Triggers A Supplemental EIS
On Thursday, December 17, 2009, at 9:00 a.m. Hawaii time, the Hawaii Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Unite Here! Local 5 v. City and County of Honolulu. Note: Justice Recktenwald is recused and Circuit Judge Derrick Chan will be taking his place.
This post will review the issues in the case, and provide
Behind The Music: Berman v. Parker
For better or worse, the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1954 decision in Berman v. Parker,348U.S. 26 (1954) marks the legal genesis of modern public use jurisprudence. The Court’s opinion in the case is pretty thin on facts, however, and does not provide any real clue regarding what was going on, or how the case came