To all of you who attended the first day of the Hawaii Land Use Conference today, thank you. As promised, here are the items I discussed during my two sessions:
What we’re reading today:
This just in: the en banc Ninth Circuit, in an opinion by Judge Kleinfeld (the dissenter from the panel opinion) has concluded that the City of Goleta’s mobile home rent control ordinance is not a regulatory taking. In Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, No. 06-56306 (Dec. 22, 2010), the majority “assumed without deciding” that
Thursday-Saturday, February 17-19, 2011, come join us for the 28th annual presentation of the advanced-level ALI-ABA Course of Study, Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation, and the sixth annual presentation of the basic-level ALI-ABA Course of Study, Condemnation 101: Making the Complex Simple in Eminent Domain, both at the Hyatt Regency in Coral Gables
The court has posted the recording of yesterday’s oral argument in Leone v. County of Maui, No. 29696, a case that we’ve been following closely involving federal regulatory takings claims, Williamson County ripeness, and the practical effect of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in GATRI v. Blane, 88 Haw. 108, 962 P.2d
In CRV Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, No. 2009-5100 (Nov. 17, 2010), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded that the EPA’s installation of a “log boom” in the Old Mormon Slough in Stockton, California as part of the remediation of a Superfund site was not a physical taking
At 10:00 a.m. HST (3 p.m. EST, noon PST), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments in a case we’ve been following that involves federal regulatory takings claims, Williamson County ripeness, the practical effect of the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision in GATRI v. Blane, 88 Haw. 108, 962 P.2d 367 (1998)
Here’s a case that reveals exactly what is wrong with the Supreme Court’s ripeness doctrine in Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172 (1985). As we noted in this post, it’s “a seemingly endless procedural game where property owners are forced to keep guessing which shell the pea is
We all live under the threat the government may exercise eminent domain and take our property, and must live with that cloud, unless the threat becomes more concrete. Only then can we run to court to complain about it. While the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit didn’t expressly hold so, that idea
Last month, we attended the oral arguments in the rehearing en banc of Guggenheim v. City of Goleta, 582 F.3d 996 (9th Cir., Sep. 28, 2009).
The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel held 2-1 that a takings challenge was ripe under Williamson County, and ruled the City of Goleta, California’s ordinance was a facial