Last week, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California Building Industry Assn. v. City of San Jose, No. S212072, the case which challenges San Jose’s “inclusionary housing” requirement.
The Court of Appeal held that under rational basis review (and not heightend scrutiny) San Jose’s affordable housing exaction might survive because it was
Earlier, we posted the cert petition in Hillcrest Property, LLP v. Pasco County, No. 12-846 (cert. petition filed Jan. 15, 2015), which asks the Supreme Court to review the Eleventh Circuit’s decision throwing out Hillcrest’s facial substantive due process challenge to the county’s “Right of Way Preservation Ordinance.” The ordinance allows the county to land
Williamson County gives everyone grief, and if you needed any more proof, here it is.
In A Forever Recovery, Inc. v. Township of Pennfield, No. 13-2657 (Apr. 2, 2015), an unpublished opinion from the Sixth Circuit, the court upheld the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees and costs to a property owner who
Two stories to read, in tandem:
It’s not often that we say a law review article is a “must-read.” But this one definitely is, especially for all you regulatory takings mavens: David L. Callies, Through a Glass Clearly: Predicting the Future in Land Use Takings Law, 54 Washburn L. Rev. 43 (2014). A pdf of the article is posted here
Here’s the letter request which we sent today to the California Court of Appeal, Second Division, asking the court to publish its recent opinion in Brost v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B246153 (Mar. 25, 2015). In our post about the case, we wrote “we hope there’s a motion to publish and that the court
The cover story in Pacific Business News‘ recent edition, “Honolulu rail transit’s eminent domain” is worth reading. Most importantly, the PBN staff created maps which show how much property is targeted for acquisition, and where it is located, precisely. Yes, the full story is behind a partial paywall, but as we said
In Kirby v North Carolina Dep’t of Transportation, No. COA14-184 (Feb. 17, 2015), the North Carolina held that state’s “Map Act,” which gives the DOT the ability to designate property for future highway use and prevent its development in the meantime, was a taking. There was great shouting and gnashing of teeth that making
Brost v. City of Santa Barbara, No. B246153 (Mar. 25, 2015) is an unpublished opinion, but (1) we hope the property owners ask the court to publish it, and (2) even if it remains unpublished, it is worth reading, because the court correctly applies both Williamson County‘s futility exception, and the “background principles”
A couple of noteworthy conferences upcoming, one in-person, the other a “webinar” format: