Here are the latest opinions of interest from the Court of Federal Claims, which has nationwide jurisdiction over inverse condemnation and regulatory takings claims against the federal government where the compensation sought exceeds $10,000:
A cert petition has been filed seeking review of Joy Builders, Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, 11 N.Y.3d 863 (2008). That decision was summarized by Professor Patty Salkin on the Law of the Land blog here. The New York Court of Appeals refused to hear the case, ordering “Appeal dismissed without costs, by
The modified opinion in Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), a case we summarized here, has been further modified in this order. The latest modifications do not alter the judgment that the a city could notincrease an in-lieu affordable housing
Instead of an in-person Spring Meeting this year, the ABA Section of State & Local Government Law will be “meeting” virtually from March 31-April 2, 2009. As part of the meeting, the Section will be featuring a series of teleconference and live audio webcasts on a variety of subjects including topics near and dear to
Thank you to Kamuela attorney Margaret Wille for allowing us to post the commentary she published in West Hawaii Today (Mar. 7, 2009), but which is not available on line. Posting on inversecondemnation.com is not an endorsement of the views expressed or the conclusions reached, but we thought it was worthwhile to hear others’ voices on this important subject. Disclosure: we represent the property owners in the eminent domain cases instituted by the County, County of Hawaii v. C&J Coupe Family Ltd. P’ship which she discusses. Our thoughts on the topic are posted here.
Who Pays For Impacts: You Do
by Margaret Wille
Recently there have been several articles in West Hawaii Today about “fair share” versus “impact” fees. Probably there are many readers who wonder why do these fees matter to me. In other words, does this issue affect the ordinary Big Island taxpayer? Yes, very much so.
These fees, regardless of name, are charged to developers to defray a portion of the cost to maintain the current level of service for one or more categories of public facilities impacted by the proposed development.
The first question to ask is whether you believe the developer who reaps the financial benefit of the new development should shoulder a portion of the financial cost to maintain the current level of service for affected public facilities that are off of the developed property, e.g. area roads or police and fire stations. Would you rather all of the resulting costs to maintain the current level of service of these affected public facilities be paid for by us existing taxpayers? By way of example, when Costco went in, who paid the 5.5 million in cost to upgrade the Queen K intersection, just to maintain the current level of service at that intersection (I believe the level of service of that intersection was level D if not worse.) We did, you, me, all of us existing taxpayers and businesses paid for the improvements needed just to continue at that same low level of service (and if bond money was used for a portion of either the County’s or the State’s cost, you could say we saddled our kids with some of this expense). If the County had passed a development fee ordinance consistent with the State’s 1992 impact fee law, some of the County’s cost of those intersection improvements would instead have been paid by Costco’s owners.
Continue Reading Impact Fees And “Fair Share” Guest Commentary: “Who Pays For Impacts: You Do”
In Building Industry Ass’n of Central California v. City of Patterson, No. F054785 (Cal. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2009), the California District Court of Appeal held that the city could not increase an in-lieu affordable housing exaction from $734 to $21,000 per house, because it failed to show the increase was attributable to the
Thanks to James Lawlor of the Land Use Legal Report for letting us know that the U.S. Supreme Court has declined to review Ocean Harbor Homeowners Ass’n v. California Coastal Comm’n, 163 Cal. App. 4th 215, 77 Cal. Rptr. 432 (2008). In that case, the California Court of Appeals held that the California Coastal
Thanks to Kona Blogger Aaron Stene for pointing out an article from West Hawaii Today, “County lawyers say fair share legal.”The article reports:
Council members who say Judge Ronald Ibarra’s 2007 ruling in a contested condemnation case invalidated the county’s fair share assessments are basing their argument on too specific a portion
Some interesting reports filtering across my screen today:
Thanks to Kona Blogger Aaron Stene for sending this next item my way, a follow up to the previous two days’ reports from West Hawaii Today (posted here and here) about Hawaii County’s so-called “fair share” exaction system. In “Council reaffirms belief in fair share legality,” WHT reports:
The county’s Corporation Counsel