From the Ninth Circuit, a published opinion in a case challenging a Napa Valley city’s mobilehome rent control ordinance, Rancho de Calistoga v. City of Calistoga, No. 12-17749 (Sep. 3, 2015). Here’s a complete summary of the issues in the case, along with the Ninth Circuit merits and amici briefs. We’ve been following it because
Hawaii Federal Court Gets Rid Of Most Claims Against Land Use Commission, But Allows Takings And Vested Rights Claims To Go Forward
Here’s the latest in a case that we’ve been following, which was in both state and federal court, Bridge Aina Lea v. Land Use Comm’n.
The litigation is a series of two lawsuits that originated in state court in the Third Circuit (Big Island), one an original jurisdiction civil rights lawsuit, the other
Not Quite “Where No Man Has Gone Before” – Hawaii Supreme Court Considers Mauna Kea’s 30 Meter Telescope
Oral Arguments part I
Oral Arguments part II
Three points before we get to our more involved thoughts on last week’s oral arguments in what is known as the “Thirty Meter Telescope” case, Mauna Kea Anaina Hou v. Bd. of Land and Natural Resources, No. SCAP-14-0000873:
- Appellate oral arguments are not necessarily an accurate
Federal Court: City Stopped Blowing Hot And Cold And Had Exclusive Possession Of Property Under Quick-Take Statute, So It Was OK To Seize Anti-Eminent Domain Sign
You remember that case about property on the rural north shore of Oahu, in which the City and County of Honolulu is condemning a vacant parcel in order to build a new fire station. The City hasn’t moved on building the station and hasn’t included money in the budget to do so. There’s even some question
NC Supreme Court To Review “Map Act” Takings Case
We have learned that the North Carolina Supreme Court has granted the State’s request to review Kirby v. North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015).
That’s the case in which the Court of Appeals not only held that the property owners’ claims were ripe, but that the Map Act — which gives
Wisconsin App: Town’s “Scare Gun” Permit Requirement Not A Taking
Breaking Up Communities For Redevelopment
A piece on the humor site Cracked, “4 Thriving Communities That Rich People Destroyed On Purpose,” tells an old story: modest-but-decent places “redeveloped” into (1) Dodger Stadium, (2) Brazil’s Olympic venues; (3) the Salton Sea, and (4) Central Park, respectively.
(We note that the segment on the Salton Sea is the
What You Need To Know About Hawaii’s New Environmental Court
Enviro Wars Episode IV: A New Court
You may have heard that the Hawaii Legislature, after an intensive years-long effort by environmental groups, recently created a new court with specialized jurisdiction that could have a big impact on how property and business owners are treated by Hawaii’s courts.
Known as the “Environmental Court,” this new
New Cert Petition: Does The Takings “Denominator” Rule Require Two Parcels To Be Treated As One?
Takings nerd alert: we posted about this case late last year, when the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that two separate parcels owned by the same family must be treated as a single unit for purposes of determining whether there’s been a taking. Eventually, the Wisconsin Supreme Court denied review.
So here’s the next step, the
Podcast: Cal. Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose – Is An “Inclusionary” Housing Requirement An Exaction, Or Mere Zoning?
Here’s a short (approx. 10 minute) summary of the recent decision by the California Supreme Court in California Building Industry Ass’n v. City of San Jose, No. S212072 (June 15, 2015).
In that case, the court upheld the city’s “inclusionary housing” requirement against a Nollan–Dolan–Koontz challenge. The court concluded the ordinance