After the New York Court of Appeals’ decisions in the Goldstein (Atlantic Yards) and Kaur (Columbia) cases, we opined that there were not many limits remaining on the government’s exercise of eminent domain in that state.
But even after those cases, there’s got to be some limits, no?
Our Owners’ Counsel of America colleague Michael
The appellate courts in California haven’t been too friendly to the medical marijuana dispensaries when it comes to land use and zoning. See here, here for example (the latter case is being considered by the California Supreme Court, so we may see some major pronouncement this year).
Here’s the latest decision, City of Lake
In Town of Bozrah v. Chmurynski, No. SC 18424 (Feb. 14, 2012), the Connecticut Supreme Court held that in order for the town’s zoning enforcement officer to inspect private property, he must obtain an injunction (similar to a warrant in the criminal context) that is based on probable cause:
In conclusion, we hold that
Here’s one court that gets its doctrine right. Bonito Partners, LLC v. City of Flagstaff, No. 1 CA-CV 10-0819 (Feb. 21, 2012).
A property owner challenged a city ordinance that requires a landowner repair adjacent public sidewalks, else the city will do it and send the owner the bill, and if the landowner doesn’t
Professor Patricia E. Salkin (of the Law of the Land blog) has written this review of Professor David Callies’ Regulating Paradise: Land Use Controls in Hawaii (2d ed. 2010). The review is in the latest edition of the Urban Lawyer (43 Urb. Lawyer 1107 (2011)), the law review published by the ABA’s Section of
Check this out: the Hawaii Legislature is considering two bills (HB1707 and SB2089) that will require “nonresident” property owners who rent their property for thirty days or less (transient vacation rentals) to use a licensed real estate broker to rent the property, and to employ a property manager to operate it. “Nonresident owner”
Professor Richard Epstein, in his own inimitable and unequivocal style, opines on rent control and the Harmon cert petition in a Federalist Society podcast. A must-listen. Here’s the description:
In March 2011, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued summary judgment in Harmon v. Markus, a challenge to New York’s rent stabilization law
As he writes in yesterday’s column, “Supreme Court should take on New York City’s rent control laws.” He’s writing about the Harmon case and the cert petition which the Supreme Court is currently considering:
Rent control is unconstitutional because it is an egregious and uncompensated physical occupation of property. The Constitution says that
We’ve been meaning to post this interesting and important case, but it got lost in the shuffle. Thanks to a colleague for the reminder.
Try explaining that headline to anyone but a land use lawyer, and they would think you are a little bit crazy. What is so odd about a federal court actually exercising
