Here’s the latest in an issue we’ve been following, just because if the plastic bag ban hasn’t reached your jurisdiction yet, it certainly will (it has been adopted across Hawaii’s counties except for the City and County of Honolulu, for example).So it’s worthwhile to keep up with developments.
Tuesday Tidbits
Here’s what we’re reading on this Tuesday-after-a-long-weekend:
- “Economic Impact in Regulatory Takings Law,” a forthcoming article by lawprof Steven J. Eagle about one of the prongs of the Penn Central takings test. Professor Eagle “concludes that unresolved issues and complexities in adjudicating the ‘economic impact of the regulation on the claimant’ test provide
ABA Takings Roundtable – The U.S. Supreme Court Property Rights Cases – Feb. 26, 2013
If you are a member of the ABA, mark your calendars for Tuesday, February 26, 2013, noon to 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, for a free teleconference jointly sponsored by the ABA’s Section on Litigation’s Environmental Litigation Commitee and the Condemnation, Zoning, and Land Use Committee to discuss the latest and greatest in takings law
Epstein’s Podcast On Koontz: “The Vexed Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions”
Worth listening: a 17-minute podcast by Professor Richard Epstein, with his thoughts — apparently without a script and seemingly in a single breath — on the oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
Download the mp3 here. If that doesn’t work, go
We Can Try To Understand The New York Times’ Effect On Man (When It Opines On Eminent Domain Law)
Does the editorial board of the New York Times really have the stones to start off its latest editorial about the Takings Clause, “Where Is the Taking?“, with this:
When a city condemns private property to make way for a public highway, that is a classic “taking” for which government must provide “just
More On Koontz Oral Arguments: Is Nollan A Theory Dependent Upon Accepting An Unconsitutional Condition, Then Challenging It As A Taking?
We’re tied up all day in the 10th Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, but two other bloggers have stepped up to fill the gap, offering cogent analysis and some contrarian thoughts about the recent oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
Most
The Good, The Bad, And The Scalia: Koontz Oral Argument Round-Up
In addition to our summary of and reaction to yesterday’s oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012), here is the leading commentary from other sources:
- Lyle Denniston at SCOTUSblog: “The very idea that an unconstitutional “taking” had occurred to an owner of
SCOTUS Arguments In Monetary Exactions Case: (Sliced) Bread And Circuses
When you are a property owner making a takings argument and Justice Scalia gives you a hard time at oral argument, you would be safe in thinking that you’ve got an uphill battle.
That was the situation today during the oral argument (transcript here) in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist.
SCOTUS Transcript In Koontz
For those of us who were far, far away, and thus not able to be in D.C. for today’s oral arguments in person, here is the transcript in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012).
Here’s the first recap of the arguments, from Greenwire‘s Lawrence
Exactions Flashback – Our Visit To The Dolan Site
With the oral arguments in Koontz v. St Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., No. 11-1447 (cert. granted Oct. 5, 2012) at last here, we thought we’d go back and revisit our write-up of our visit to the Dolan site, complete with photos: Regulatory Takings Pilgrimage Part II.
Koontz, as you know, is about whether the Nollan nexus test, and Dolan‘s requirement of “rough proportionality” apply only to land exactions, or is a generally-applicable test for all exactions.Continue Reading Exactions Flashback – Our Visit To The Dolan Site