Two stories to read, in tandem:
…
It’s not often that we say a law review article is a “must-read.” But this one definitely is, especially for all you regulatory takings mavens: David L. Callies, Through a Glass Clearly: Predicting the Future in Land Use Takings Law, 54 Washburn L. Rev. 43 (2014). A pdf of the article is posted here…
In Kirby v North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015), the North Carolina held that state’s “Map Act,” which gives the DOT the ability to designate property for future highway use and prevent its development in the meantime, was a taking. There was great shouting and gnashing of teeth that making…
Brost v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B246153 (Mar. 25, 2015) is an unpublished opinion, but (1) we hope the property owners ask the court to publish it, and (2) even if it remains unpublished, it is worth reading, because the court correctly applies both Williamson County‘s futility exception, and the “background principles” …
A couple of noteworthy conferences upcoming, one in-person, the other a “webinar” format:
…
We can’t hear or read the word “plethora” without thinking of the “¡Three Amigos!” scene with Jefe and El Guapo, so when the California Court of Appeal “apologize[d] for the plethora of statutory citations and footnotes” (in a footnote!) in the latest opinion about the fallout and intragovernmental battle over the money in…
Check out State ex rel. Sunset Estate Properties, LLC v. Village of Lodi, No. 2013-1856 (Mar. 10, 2015), a case in which the Ohio Supreme Court held that a local zoning ordinance was unconstitutional on its face.
The Village’s zoning code, adopted in 1987, banned manufactured home (trailer) parks. Of course, the ordinance could…
Here’s the amici brief of the National Association of Home Builders, the National Association of Realtors, the National Association of Independent Business Small Business Legal Center, and others in the case we’ve been following out of the federal courts in Florida about a county’s “right of way preservation” ordinance (which is somewhat similar, but perhaps…
Weird headline from KITV. No, owners whose property is taken for the rail aren’t “profiting” if they are able to get more for their land than what the condemning agency offered; “just compensation and damages” are required by the constitution, and if they are able to obtain more, in many cases that still leaves them…
Worth reading: “Legislative Exactions after Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District,” an article by colleagues Luke Wake and Jarod Bona, recently posted to SSRN. Here’s the abstract:
Decided in June, 2013, Koontz v. St. Johns River Management District settled a long-running debate among scholars as to whether the nexus test &mdash…
