Will the multi-billion dollar Honolulu rail project be halted by a federal court over a failure to adequately study the project’s possible effects on Chinatown and an old urban park/playground, or a failure to articulate the reasons why a tunnel under a major city street was rejected?
It might, but not just yet.
Today’s Order
The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii (Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima sitting by designation, because the entire Hawaii district court bench is recused) has issued an Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment in the federal challenge to the Honolulu rail project.
More to follow after a chance to read it.
Our past
The three-part Penn Central test for an ad hoc regulatory taking tasks courts with evaluation of the economic impact of the regulation on the property’s use, the property owner’s distinct investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. Throw all of these “factors” into a pot, stir, and voila, the answer of whether
If you need another reminder of what land use and zoning law looks like on Kauai in practice (and, in turn, in Hawaii generally), see this article, Hanalei vs. Hanalei in The Garden Island newspaper. It’s about a proposal to develop a new resort that (not surprisingly) is “meeting staunch opposition from a rapidly growing
Check out this complaint, filed last week in federal court in Honolulu by a Kauai councilmember against the County of Kauai, a Planning Department Official, and the Kauai prosecutor. The councilmember claims the defendants maliciously prosecuted him for a zoning violation.
And just what was the alleged zoning violation?
While the Planning official was
Here’s a follow up to our earlier brief post about the opinion in Lavan v. City of Los Angeles, No.11-56253 (Sep. 5, 2012), in which a 2-1 Ninth Circuit panel held that the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments protect the homeless against the City of L.A.’s seizure and destruction of their “momentarily unattended” property. The
In Moore v. City of Middletown, No 2012-1363 (Aug. 30, 2012), the Ohio Supreme Court held that a property owner did not have standing to bring a regulatory takings claim when a “foreign municipality” (the neighboring city) rezoned an adjacent parcel, because the municipality did not have jurisdiction to exercise eminent domain over his
Check this out. A report from the Maui News that “Environmental court would be perfect fit here – judge.” Apparently, there is an effort to get the Judiciary or the Legislature to form another court with specialized jurisdiction, either formally like the Family Courts, or more likely on a less formalized basis like
An interesting new complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Hawaii, asserting claims for substantive due process, violation of the zoning enabling act, and the Kauai County Charter.
A owner of property that has been designated for resort development for 35 years is asserting that the adoption by the County’s voters of a charter amendment
In a short opinion in Sierra Club v. Castle & Cooke Homes Hawaii, Inc., No. CAAP-11-0000625 (Aug. 24, 2012), the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals held that the Hawaii Senate’s failure to confirm a sitting Land Use Commissioner for a second term did not disqualify him under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 26-34(a):
Kanuha