Here's what we're reading today:
- "Flash Boys and the Transportation Corridor Act" - from the North Carolina Land Use Litigator blog, some thoughts about the recent NC Supreme Court decision that we described as a "muddled hash." This is the one in which the court denied class certification to the claims of 800+ property owners whose land has been blighted by the Map Act, a statute that allows the NC DOT to prohibit the development of parcels where the DOT wants to put a future highway. In a recent story on the case by North Carolina Lawyers Weekly, we said this about the case: "'I've read the decision a couple of times since it was published and it still is kind of inexplicable to me,' he said in a phone interview.'It's somewhat frustrating because you can't quite figure out what the court's analysis is and where that leaves the rest of the case.'"
- In a similiar vein, see "Why buy the land when you can get it for free?," by Pacific Legal Foundation's Mark Miller, about a New Jersey case now before the NJ Supreme Court that also involves the government prohibiting development of an owner's land so it could be an open space resource. As Mr.Miller writes, "Why local governments fail to understand the Fifth Amendment takings clause, I will never know. It’s only been the law for 220 years or so, after all. It is rare that I can open the paper – or read a news site – and not discover a new example of an old problem: the government taking property without paying for the taking."
- "New Hurdles for Public Agencies: Accessing Property May Now Require Eminent Domain Actions," from the PublicCEO blog, about a recent decision from a California Court of Appeal, in which the court held that "[i]f a condemnor intends to take private property or intends to perform actions that will result in the acquisition of a property interest, permanent or temporary, large or small, it must directly condemn those interests, and pay for them, in a condemnation suit that provides the affected landowner with all of his constitutional protections against the state’s authority." We discussed the decision here. Mark Easter and Greg Snarr, at California's Best Best & Krieger, write: "The California Supreme Court will likely review this case. It remains to be seen how courts will handle agencies’ access needs in the interim. If the Supreme Court does not overturn it, the ruling will inflict more work on condemning agencies and the courts. This decision could also negatively impact property owners because they may now need to defend against an eminent domain action instead of a less expensive, less time consuming petition under the entry statutes."
