What we are reading:
- Eminent Domain Taking of Private Sewer System Costs City Almost Nothing - from Massachusetts Land Use Monitor. A case wherein the government claimed that the taking of a private sewer line actually benefitted the owner since it relieved the owner of the cost of maintenance. The appeals court apparently bought the argument, awarding $10,000 despite the owner's apprasier testifying that it was worth $271,000.
- How Is That for Chutzpah? - Gideon Kanner clues us in to a recent opinion in Florida Dep't of Agriculture & Consumer Services v. Cox, No. 4D09-979 (Jan. 26, 2011) in which a Florida District Court of Appeal concluded that the government was not entitled to recoup attorneys fees in an inverse condemnation case it lost. Yes, the loser sought attorneys fees on the theory that the plaintiff property owners who recovered $4,000,000 in compensation did not get all they sought. The court of appeals rejected the argument as "frivolous."
- A trio of reports/commentary on California's redevelopment agencies, a discussion brought about by Gov. Jerry Brown 2.0's call to eliminate them. Start with This Land is Your Land, This Land is My Land: Looking at 50 Years of the Capitol Area Plan (Part 1) from the Sacramento Press, then continue on to End Redevelopment 'Luxury' and Redevelopment Is Redistribution, both from Cal Watchdog.
- From the Santa Cruz (CA) Sentinel, this report: Monning researching bill to address rent control lawsuits. Detailing a California Assemblyman's proposal to hold property owners liable for the government's attorneys fees in cases challenging a local municipality's rent control ordinances. "Assemblyman Bill Monning, D-Carmel, is looking into a bill that would allow city and county governments, when successful in defending rent control ordinances, to charge the party who brought the challenge for the government's legal expenses." A property owner's attorney is responded, "'The fact is the government already has an overwhelming advantage when private parties challenge a law,' said attorney Thomas Casparian, who has argued several cases on behalf of mobile home park owners, including Paul Goldstone, owner of Alimur Mobile Home Park in Soquel. 'This could have a chilling effect for people who are challenging government actions and defending their rights. Any provision probably should be at least reciprocal.'"
