I was at the University of Hawaii Law School today for an informal discussion with students about opportunities to practice property-related law. There are many, and Hawaii has always been a hotbed of cutting edge issues in land use, regulatory takings, and eminent domain law.
For example, the current Kelo-eque nearly-anything-goes approach to “public
SCOTUSblog posts the brief for the landowner in Wilkie v. Robbins, a land use case to be heard by the US Supreme Court on March 19. The appeal arose after federal officials used their regulatory power to coerce a Wyoming rancher to give the government an easement without just compensation. Among other claims, the
Professor Paul Boudreaux at Land Use Prof Blog asks Should government land use science be easier to challenge? He details a Utah proposal to allow a developer to introduce evidence demonstrating that the science supporting a zoning restriction is faulty, and compel binding arbitration if the government rejects the evidence.
Interesting concept. One might think, under Euclidean norms, that the comprehensiveness of the process would produce a scientifically-valid outcome, but anyone who plays the land use game knows that is not necessarily the case, and the data used to support land use regulation often reminds me of a certain kind of science….Weird Science.
We all know that in Public Access Shoreline Hawaii v. Hawaii Planning Comm’n, 79 Haw. 25, 903 P.2d 1246 (1995), the Hawaii Supreme Court held:
Our examination of the relevant legal developments in Hawaiian history leads us to the conclusion that the western concept of exclusivity is not universally applicable in Hawai’i.
The court
I had the pleasure and honor to participate as faculty in this year’s Hawaii Land Use Conference, which wrapped up yesterday.
The two-day conference covered the spectrum of topics relating to land use, including eminent domain, regulatory takings, endangered species act and federal Corps of Engineers permits, the treatment of agricultural land under Hawaii’s unique
According to one U.S. District Court (N.D. Iowa), there is no right to a jury trial on the issue of whether a land use ordinance is constitutional. The decision applies City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999). In Doctor John’s Inc., v. City of Sioux City, a case involving the regulation of the plaintiff’s “adult” store, the district court held that the City has no Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury on the issue of whether its ordinances are constitutional.
The court’s decision can be found here (pdf).
Continue Reading ▪ No Jury Trial on “Constitutionality” of Land Use Laws
As a way of saying “aloha” to 2006, I’ve summarized the land use lawhighlights (orlowlights, depending on your point of view) from the Hawaii SupremeCourt, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, roughly inchronological order. Topics include shorelines, eminent domain,environmental impact statements, RLUIPA, vested rights, and land uselitigation procedures.
If you think I missed any key cases or events, please email me.
One of 2006’s bigger cases was Diamond v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res., 112 Haw. 161, 145 P.3d 704 (Oct. 24, 2006), involving the location of the “shoreline” for purposes of determining the buildable area on an oceanfront parcel.
There was news coverage a-plenty, and I posted more than a few comments on
Revisiting the RLUIPA issue, the Ninth Circuit held in Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir., Aug. 1, 2006) that a local land use decision regarding a church’s proposed use of its property violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
I commented upon the decision in Hui Kakoo Aina Hoopulapula v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res.,112 Haw. 28, 143 P.3d 1230 (Sep. 21, 2006) earlier in this post.
This opinion, detailing when and how a contested case may be demanded, should be read together with Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu v. Land