In anticipation of the upcoming eminent domain conferences, ALI-ABA has posted a (free!) short podcast by Michael Berger about the recent $37 million inverse condemnation judgment against a northern California for causing the plaintiff’s land to become undevelopable wetlands (Yamagiwa v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 05-4149 VRW (Nov. 28, 2007)).
Eminent Domain Seminars – January 2008
From January 3 – 5, 2008, ALI-ABA is putting on its annual program of eminent domain seminars, this time in San Francisco, California. Two programs are being offered: “Condemnation 101: Fundamentals of Condemnation Law and Land Valuation” for those who want a course on the basics, and “Eminent Domain and Land Valuation
▪ Links for “Progress in Protecting Property Rights Post-Kelo“
To my colleagues at the LINC conference in D.C., thank you for the opportunity to present the topic. Here are links to the cases discussed:
- Applying Kennedy’s Kelo concurring opinion – 49 Wb, LLC v. Village of Haverstraw, 2007 NY Slip Op. 05506 (Jun. 19, 2007) (New York)
- Blight slight – Mint Properties v.
▪ At the ALI-ABA Inverse Condemnation Conference
Light posting this week — I’m at the Inverse Condemnation and Related Government Liability conference. If you’re attending, please look me up; I usually sit in the back row. If you couldn’t attend this year, you really should consider it in the future: it’s a great conference.
▪ Takings and Historic Preservation: Penn Central
UH Law Professor Carl Christensen has kindly invited me to discuss takings law with the students in his historic preservation seminar on Monday. I think a good starting point is the granddaddy of historic preservation/regulatory takings decisions, Penn Central Trans. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), a case that highlights
▪ Land Use and Zoning Seminar
To all those who attended today’s sessions on Practical Guide to Land Use and Zoning, thank you.
Here is the upcoming attorney’s fee case in the US Supreme Court that I mentioned, the Hawaii fee-shifting statute in cases of “development” without a permit in environmental matters, and California’s Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
▪ April 5: Hawaii Land Use and Zoning Seminar
There’s still time to register for Practical Guide to Zoning and Land Use Law, to be held on April 5, in Honolulu. Details, including the complete agenda and registration form are here.
I’ll be leading a session on “Appealing an Administrative Zoning Decision,” in which we will go over the ins-and-outs of taking
▪ Hawaii Land Use Conference Summary
I had the pleasure and honor to participate as faculty in this year’s Hawaii Land Use Conference, which wrapped up yesterday.
The two-day conference covered the spectrum of topics relating to land use, including eminent domain, regulatory takings, endangered species act and federal Corps of Engineers permits, the treatment of agricultural land under Hawaii’s unique
▪ Land Use Law Conference Materials
For those of you who attended the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, thank you. Here are the materials I mentioned in my session on Water, Water, Everywhere: Coastal Zone Management Permits; Hawaii’s Floodway, Floodplain and Coastal Inundation Zone Requirements, plus a few others I did not have time to cover:
- Summary of the Leslie case and commentary – one of last year’s “big cases” applying the CZMA, and what is “development” under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-22. My amicus brief in that case can be downloaded here.
- Summary of Diamond case and commentary – 2006’s second “big case” about the CZMA; the “shoreline” issue determined in that case was about the baseline for setbacks, not ownership.
- The three most important administrative law 2006 HAWSCT opinions (standing, “property,” and what is a “contested case”).
- Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) – government’s ability to regulate does not equal the ability to affect ownership rights without just compensation.
- Boone v. United States, 944 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1989) – guess what, Kaiser Aetna meant what it said.
- Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 757 (1999) – Kaiser Aetna really meant what it said – just because a navigable ship repair facility in San Francisco Bay is subject to regulation does not mean property rights are affected.
- State of Hawaii Office of State Planning; Guide to State Permits and Approvals for Land and Water Use and Development (Draft 1995) (600kb pdf) – detailing the 55 or more permits that may be applicable to Hawaii property (at least circa 1995).
- Items I didn’t have time to talk about, but are worth mentioning:
- Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 773 P.2d 250 (1989) – intervenors in SMA permit applications don’t get a contested case in Honolulu.
- County of Kauai v. Pacific Standard Life Ins. Co.,65 Haw. 318, 653 P.2d 766 (1982) (Nukolii) – under the regulatoryscheme applicable to the Nukolii parcel, the SMA permit would have beenthe “last discretionary act” (and therefore the official assurances onwhich the landowner had a right to rely) if the election had not beencertified. Because it had been certified pre-SMA permit approval, theelection was the “official assurance,” so any reliance was premature.
- Participant’s Guide to the SMA Permit (10mb pdf)
- Hawaii Hazard Mitigation Forum
- NOAA Hawaii Coastal Zone Evaluation report (2004) (pdf)
▪ Advanced Land Use Seminar Materials
To those who attended today’s land use seminar — thank you. If you have any questions that were not answered, please emailme, or if you would like additional copies of the law review articlehanded out. Here are the additional references and materials from mysessions on “Supreme Court Update” and “Vested Rights” —