A big thank you to our friend and colleague from Detroit, Dan Dalton, who sent us a recently-published book which he authored, “Litigating Religious Land Use Cases.”
This book discusses how to litigate such a religious land use case on behalf of a religious entity pursuant to the Religious Land Use and
“You can’t have rights without advocates.”
– Michael Berger
We’re at the William and Mary Law School in Williamsburg, Virginia today for the 11th Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Conference. As we’ve noted earlier, Michael Berger is this
Update: San Francisco is going to appeal.
It cost a lot to live in San Francisco, these days. A whole lot, whether you own, or rent.
If you’re a renter, however, you should hope and pray that your landlord wants out of the rental business. Because under a San Francisco ordinance, property owners
If that title doesn’t grab you, nothing will. Here’s the description of an upcoming program from the American Planning Association that looks awfully interesting:
The Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association is pleased to host the upcoming webcast Sex, Guns & Drugs: Planning for Controversial Land Useson Wednesday, October 22nd from 1:00 to 2:30 PM CST. Registration is $20 for PLD members, $40 for nonmembers, and $45 for webinar registration plus a Planning and Law Division membership. Presented by Daniel J. Bolin and Gregory W. Jones of Ancel Glink, this webcast will explore if and where controversial businesses belong in communities.
The U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of religion, and the right to bear arms. But it’s not that simple. Businesses that rely on these constitutional guarantees continue to generate controversy in communities across the country. To compound matters, state legislatures from Arizona to Massachusetts have been busy granting new — and in many cases, previously unheard of — rights to marijuana and firearm retailers.This has rapidly drawn planners and zoning practitioners into the debate over how these businesses best fit into their communities, and whether their communities are legally obligated to accommodate these uses in the first place. Spend an hour learning about the issues and regulatory strategies from around the country.
Webcast—Sex, Guns & Drugs: Planning for Controversial Land Uses
October 22, 2014
1:00 – 2:30 PM CST
, including registration.
Continue Reading Upcoming Webcast: “Sex, Guns, And Drugs: Planning For Controversial Land Uses”
Ah, Williamson County. We’ve ranted about it before, so we won’t do so here (again). But takings mavens know that a property owner must meet two tests before she can raise a takings claim against a state or local government in federal court: the state or local government must have reached a final
You mght read the headline of this post and naturally say to yourself, “well, that’s obvious.” But to the Eleventh Circuit in Kentner v. City of Sanibel, 750 F.3d 1274 (11th Cir. 2014), it wasn’t.
In that case, the court concluded that riparian rights are not “fundamental rights” protected by the Due Process Clause
Remember that case which we posted about earlier, in which the City and County of Honolulu condemned an undeveloped lot in rural Oahu for a fire station, but has been met with staunch resistance by the property owners? Not only did we post on the case, but it made national waves, also.
The City
Tennessee Supreme Court, Nashville
In Phillips v. Montgomery County, No. M2012-00737-SC-R11-CV (Aug. 18, 2014), the Tennessee Supreme Court held that a property owner could recover under the state’s inverse condemnation statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-16-123, for a regulatory taking:
We hold that, like the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution, article I
Check this out, an opinion from the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court in a tax assessment case, Jacobowitz v. Bd of Assessors, Town of Cornwall, No. D39807 (July 30, 2014. The court held that the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on warrantless searches and seizures means that a property owner did not have
A couple of years ago, we posted the complaint (actually, a petition for mandate) alleging a big regulatory takings claim against the County of San Luis Obispo based on the County’s denial of a permit to drill for oil. A very big claim. $6.24 billion big. See “Wow, That’s A Lot of Just Compensation