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 …
A federal regulatory takings claim being litigated in the first instance in federal court? Why, that’s as rare as hen’s teeth.
Here’s the deal: under Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank,473 U.S. 172 (1985), a federal regulatory takings claim is not ripe until the property owners has first pursued compensation through available…
The Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in the Hawaii Superferry case, coming as it did mere hours after oral argument and just days before the ferry was scheduled to sail, certainly was the issue dominating the headlines in the last quarter of 2007, especially after the Legislature was called into special session to pass legislation…
These seemingly unrelated court decisions were tied together with a common thread: private agreements for the most part are not substitutes for public processes, whether it is eminent domain, rezoning, or the granting of permits.
Several courts determined that agreements in which government agreed with private parties to exercise eminent domain were invalid:
…
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…
In a story dated December 30, 2007 in the New York Times Travel section, “Not in My Tropical Backyard,” Christoper Pala ties together several seemingly-unrelated threads: the Hawaii Superferry, development on Molokai, the Hokulia project on the Big Island, and expanded resort development on Oahu’s North Shore. The only issue that…
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…
In a case at the intersection of Kelo-style eminent domain and First Amendment church-state issues, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in In re Condemnation of 1839 North Eighth Street, No. 36 EAP 2006 (Dec. 29, 2007), held that the taking of property designated as “blighted” pursuant to a redevelopment plan, and for a nominal…
I’ve finally had a chance to go back and digest Colony Surf, Ltd. v. Director of the Dep’t of Planning and Permitting, No 26037 (Dec. 26, 2007), the case in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held tha.
