The only courthouse we know where the Supreme Court
is below the Court of Appeals (SJC on the second floor,
appellate court on the third)
A brief one from the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
In Attorney General v. Town of Milton, No. SJC-13580 (Jan. 8, 2025), the court rejected a challenge to
Here’s a recently-filed cert petition to watch. We won’t go into the background, because the Questions Presented pretty much lay the foundation:
Respondent County of San Diego, et al. (County), a California land use agency, denied the land use permits for Village Communities et al. (Village) to develop a much-needed residential and mixed-use community
At first glance, it might seem like there’s a lot there in the U.S. Court of Appeals’ opinion in Becker v. City of Hillsboro, No. 23-3367 (Jan. 7, 2025).
After all, the city’s prohibition on new private wells and another requirement that newly built homes connect to the city’s water system seems a bit
It’s been a couple of weeks, but we’re still trying to wrap our head around the Iowa Supreme Court’s opinion in Singer v. City of Orange City, No. 23-1600 (Dec. 20, 2024).
The court rejected a facial challenge under the Iowa Constitution’s search-and-seizure clause to a city ordinance requiring the owner of rental units
In what might be the most cliched “New York City” land use situation, check out the Appellate Division’s opinion in Coalition For Fairness v. City of New York, No. 2023-05338 (Dec. 5, 2024).
Want to convert your SoHo-NoHo artist live/work space to unlimited residential use? Be prepared to pony up and pay to the City’s Arts Fund a non-refundable fee of $100 per square foot as a precondition of even filing a building permit.
When owners challenged this fee as unconstitutional under Nollan/Dolan/Koontz/Sheetz, the trial division said no. But the Appellate Division held otherwise, concluding that the imposition of the fee lacked an essential nexus and was not roughly proportional to whatever impacts “certified artists” (who knew the government was in the business of “certifying” artists?) suffer when an owner converts.
The opinion, in true Appellate Division style is short (3 pages), so you can just read it. But here’s how the court laid out the analysis:
The ZR’s prohibition on new JLWQA units, coupled with this stated goal of broadening uses and the ZR text providing for conversions away from JLWQA use, further indicates that the City’s long-term land use goal is to phase out JLWQA units (see ZR § 143-13). By contrast, the City’s asserted goal in its arguments on appeal, of supporting art and local artists, is not related to any land use interest (see Nollan, 483 US at 837). Nor does payment into the Arts Fund promote the asserted legitimate end of preserving JLWQA stock for certified artists, as the Arts Fund does not pay for joint living-work units or other housing for artists, much less offer benefits specifically to certified artists. Instead, money from the Arts Fund “shall be allocated . . . to support arts programming, projects, organizations, and facilities that promote the public presence of the arts within the [SNX] District and surrounding neighborhoods,” with priority given to “under-resourced organizations and under-served areas” (ZR § 143-02).
Slip op. at 3.
And no proportionality either, because “there is no evidence of negative impacts on certified artists arising from the changes in zoning. Instead, [the City] represented during the approval process that there was a ‘scarcity of certified artists able to purchase’ JLWQA units, due to an ever-decreasing number of annual artist certifications the previous decade.” Id.
Declaratory judgment and injunction issued.
Check it out.
Coalition for Fairness v. City of New York, No. 2023-05338 (N.Y. App. Div. Dec. 5, 2024)
Continue Reading NY App Div: Requiring Art Fee “Donation” To Get Building Permit Lacks Nexus, Proportionality‘Tis the season for TV holiday movies. Here’s one to add to your list, as it is on-brand for us dirt lawyers. “Christmas at the Drive In” is described thusly:
“A property lawyer works to prove that her town’s Drive In Theater, a local institution, is not closed down at the holidays, finding
98 years old, and still going (for better or worse)
On this day in 1926, the United States Supreme Court issued its landmark opinion in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (Nov. 22, 1926).
You know this one (and can you call yourself a dirt lawyer if you don’t?
Lake Worth: the “lago” in Mar-a-Lago
You know his name. He’s taken on the City of Riviera Beach twice at the U.S. Supreme Court. And won both times. The houseboat that isn’t a boat. The government can’t shut you out from speaking your mind simply because you irritate them.
That’s right, it’s Fane
Here are the cases and other materials we discussed in today’s Section of State & Local Government Law Land Use group meeting on takings:
Justice Sutherland asks:
whadda mean, you don’t like apartments?
Check out this uncharacteristically-lengthy opinion from New York’s Appellate Division (and entire 6 pages!).
In Bennett v. Troy City Council, No. CV023-0709 (Oct. 24, 2024), the court invalidated a municipal upzoning (from single-family residential to Planned Development — which would permit apartments) because the city’s