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
Following up on yesterday’s post about the West Hawaii Today series on the legality of Hawaii County’s “fair share” impact fee system, the paper posts three stories about the issue:
Worthwhile article today from West Hawaii Today (the daily newspaper of the Kona side of the Big Island), “Is county practice legal?” The story details the County’s practice of demanding “fair share” payments from property owners and developers who wish to make use of their properties and seek County approvals:
The fair share
Florida’s appellate courts have been active lately in the regulatory takings arena. Here are links to summaries and analysis of the decisions.
First, from the Florida Land Use Law blog:
Why does inversecondemnation.com, a blog about land use issues, care about Hawaii Insurers Council v. Lingle, No. 27840 (Haw. Dec. 18, 2008) enough to have posted about it, you ask? The case involved whether the State of Hawaii Insurance Commissioner could collect fees from insurance companies, and whether the state legislature could thereafter
How often in an appellate opinion does the court use the term “glom?”
[The Appellee] gloms onto the “police power” aspect of the definition [of regulatory fees] in arguing that “Medeiros plainly concern[ed] the ‘police power’ of ‘criminal investigative services,’ not a user fee as suggested by [the state].”
No matter what you may
A panel of the Ninth Circuit has revised its earlier opinion in McClung v. City of Sumner, No. 07-35231 (Sep. 25, 2008), adding a footnote:
On slip Opinion page 13750, insert a new footnote 3 at the bottom of the page after the sentence that ends “. . . applies to Ordinance 1603.” (and
“This case presents an issue of first impression in this Circuit — whether a legislative, generally applicable development condition that does not require the owner to relinquish rights in the real property, as opposed to an adjudicative land-use exaction, should be reviewed pursuant to the ad hoc standards of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City
The transcript of the June 2, 2008 arguments in the federal lawsuit challenging Maui’s affordable (“workforce”) housing exaction has been released. That hearing resulted in a lengthy opinion by the District Court holding that the plaintiff’s Nollan/Dolan claims were not ripe, and a recent order holding that the facial due process and equal