This just in. In Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (Mar. 17, 2020), a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a regulatory takings claim which the District Court threw out for not being ripe under Williamson County's "state procedures" requirement.
Wait, you say, didn't the Supreme Court toss that requirement out in Knick? Yes, but it also did not disturb the separate requirement that the government charged with a taking have made the final decision applying the regulations to the property which is claimed to have been taken.
The panel thus affirmed on other grounds because the plaintiffs had not obtained an exemption from the regulation. Yes, this is the "variance" argument.
We're reading the opinion in more detail, but wanted to push it out quickly so that others weigh in. We'll have have more after a chance to digest it. Stay tuned.
Pakdel v. City and County of San Francisco, No. 17-17504 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2020)
