inversecondemnation.com

New Takings Cert Petition (Ours): Can Govt Thwart Federal Court Regulatory Takings Claims By Seeking Abstention In Favor Of State Courts?

Here's the latest in a case we've been following since before it became one of ours.

In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (Dec. 8, 2022), the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's dismissal of a regulatory takings case, holding that federal courts should abstain from considering regulatory takings cases in favor of pending state court eminent domain actions, even when the condemnor instituted the state court action after the federal takings lawsuit was filed.

In the time since the Ninth Circuit issued the opinion, our law firm has joined up with our colleague Kristen Renfro who represented the owner in the court of appeals. That's why we won't be commenting further, and instead suggest you read the cert petition we filed today, chiefly authored by Counsel of Record Deborah LaFetra (lately of the Tyler v. Hennepin County takings case). 

Here is the Question Presented:

Thomas and Daniel Gearing are categorically prohibited from building on residentially zoned vacant land that the City of Half Moon Bay prefers as an open space public park. They exercised their choice of forum by filing a lawsuit in federal court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a regulatory taking in violation of the Fifth Amendment, and seeking just compensation, costs, and attorneys’ fees. The City responded by filing an eminent domain lawsuit in state court that significantly limits the issues and the Gearings’ remedies. The City then convinced the federal court to abstain from deciding the Gearings’ first-filed federal lawsuit under Railroad Commission of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496 (1941). As a result of the forthcoming state court decision to which federal courts are bound to give full faith and credit, 28 U.S.C. § 1738, the Gearings will be deprived of full just compensation as well as other recovery authorized by the Civil Rights Act.

The question presented is:

Whether federal courts may deprive takings claimants of their chosen forum by invoking the prudential Pullman abstention doctrine to require them to first litigate their claims in state court.

Stay tuned, as always.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. ___ (June 1, 2023)

Tyler Takings Round-Up

Here are what others are saying about Supreme Court's recent ruling in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166 (U.S. May 25, 2023), the case in which the Court unanimously held that the county's keeping the excess equity in Ms. Tyler's home over what she owed in property taxes and fees is an uncompensated taking of private property.

• As usual, lawprof Ilya Somin was first out of the gate with "Major Unanimous Supreme Court Victory for Property Rights in Tyler v. Hennepin County" ("While the Supreme Court decision left some notable issues unresolved, it nonetheless sets a significant precedent. Most obviously, the jurisdictions that currently authorize home equity theft—some twelve states and the District of Columbia—will no longer be allowed to do so. In addition, the holding that states cannot just redefine property rights at will has important implications for other property rights issues. It makes it harder for states to avoid takings liability.")
• Amanda Karras has this casenote at the International Municipal Lawyers Association's blog, "Supreme Court Rules Against County in Important Takings Case" ("States and local governments may also look to Nelson as guidance and provide a mechanism for the return of the surplus equity after the sale of the property.  That said, while Nelson remains good law, the question of overruling Nelson was not on the table, and it may be that such a scheme (which would allow a local government to keep surplus equity after the sale of the property if there is a mechanism for the return of the equity to the homeowner) may not be viewed favorably by the current Court and may also conflict with subsequent precedents from the Court.")
• Amy Howe, SCOTUSblog "Justices rule Minnesota county violated takings clause" ("The county pointed to a 1935 state law that strips an owner who falls behind on her property taxes of her interest in the property. Therefore, the county argued, there was no property for the government to take. The court disagreed, stressing that 'property rights cannot be so easily manipulated.' Indeed, Roberts observed, even Minnesota itself 'recognizes that in other contexts a property owner is entitled to the surplus in excess of her debt.' Although the county can sell Tyler’s condo to recover the $15,000 that she owes it, Roberts wrote, it cannot 'use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due.' By keeping the $25,000, Roberts concluded, the county 'effected a ‘classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use.''
• Federalist Society webinar with Tony Francois, "Courthouse Steps Decision: Tyler v. Hennepin County, Minnesota" ("Join us as Tony Francois provides a detailed analysis of the decision and discusses the potential implications from this landmark ruling.").

We'll update as merited.

Unanimous SCOTUS: "state law cannot be the only source" Of Property Rights, And "traditional property law principles" As Enforced By The Takings Clause Play A Role

We'll be rendering to unto Caesar, but first we must
decide: classic or creamy?

That was quick: it seems like it was only yesterday -- or maybe more accurately, less than a month ago -- that we were listening in live to the Supreme Court as it heard arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, our law firm's case which argues that Hennepin County's keeping the excess equity in Ms. Tyler's home over what she owed in property taxes and fees is an uncompensated taking of private property and also violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

This morning, the Court issued this unanimous opinion authored by Chief Justice Roberts (again proving he's the Court's "property guy"), in which the Court held that the County's seizing Ms. Tyler's condo to satisfy her tax debt and then "keeping the change" is a taking. It's a relatively short opinion with no dissents and a very short two-Justice concurring opinion laying out some thoughts on the Excessive Fines theory (which the majority avoided, see slip op. at 14 ("Because we find that Tyler has plausibly alleged a taking under the Fifth Amendment, and she agrees that relief under “the Takings Clause would fully remedy [her] harm,” we need not decide whether she has also alleged an excessive fine under the Eighth Amendment.")). 

We're not going to comment too much on this decision, because this is one of our firm's cases. But before we post what others are saying about it, we do have a few highlights to point out.

• As noted in this post's title, perhaps the most significant and interesting part of the opinion is the passage of page 4 and 5, where the Court finally gets to a question that we've been asking for a while: is state law the exclusive source of property law and property rights? True, state law can recognize more interests as property, but it cannot recognize less. Here's what the unanimous Court has to say about the issue:

The Takings Clause does not itself define property. Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation, 524 U. S. 156, 164  (1998). For that, the Court draws on “existing rules or understandings” about property rights. Ibid. (internal quotation marks omitted). State law is one important source. Ibid.; see also Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, 560 U. S. 702, 707 (2010). But state law cannot be the only source. Otherwise, a State could “sidestep the Takings Clause by disavowing traditional property interests” in assets it wishes to appropriate. Phillips, 524 U. S., at 167; see also Webb’s Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith, 449 U. S. 155, 164 (1980); Hall v. Meisner, 51 F. 4th 185, 190 (CA6 2022) (Kethledge, J., for the Court) (“[T]he Takings Clause would be a dead letter if a state could simply exclude from its definition of property any interest that the state wished to take.”). So we also look to “traditional property law principles,” plus historical practice and this Court’s precedents. Phillips, 524 U. S., at 165–168; see, e.g., United States v. Causby, 328 U. S. 256, 260–267 (1946); Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986, 1001–1004 (1984).

• Thus, although Minnesota law has statutorily ipse dixited its own property law to define the excess equity as not property, the courts are not bound by the state's view of what constitutes compensable (i.e., Fifth Amendment "private") property, if "[h]istory and precedent say otherwise." Slip op. at 5. The government may have the the power to require you to pay property taxes, and the power to sell your home to exact those taxes if you fail to voluntary pony up, "[b]ut it could not use the toehold of the tax debt to confiscate more property than was due." Slip op. at 6
• OK, Chief, we get that before you ascended to the bench, as an advocate you argued Tahoe Sierra, and that you prevailed in that case. And we dig that you cite it for some good language. See, e.g., slip op. at 6 ("By doing so, it effected a “classic taking in which the government directly appropriates private property for its own use.” Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U. S. 302, 324 (2002) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted). Tyler has stated a claim under the Takings Clause and is entitled to just compensation."). But come on man, you repped the government in that case! Retconning your own work only goes so far and let's just say that Tahoe Sierra isn't the best authority when you need to cite cases for property rights propositions. (But as long as you keep writing good property owner opinions as a judge, we're not going to complain too much.)
• After establishing the principle that state law cannot exclusively define the term "private property" as used in the Fifth Amendment and that history and tradition and what Justice Thurgood Marshall called "core" or "normative" property principles are part of it, the Court took a dive into history "at least as far back as Runnymeade in 1215" and the Magna Carta. Check out pages 6-9, where the opinion concludes that there is a "consensus that a government could not take more property than it was owed[.]"
• Court next rejected the County's argument that the issue was settled in Nelson v. City of New York, 352 U. S. 103 (1956), where the Court rejected a "belated" argument that the city keeping the excess equity was a taking (the owner had, until arguments in the Supreme Court, limited its arguments to due process and equal protection claims). There, unlike the County's procedure here, the taxpayer could have availed himself of a procedure to recover the surplus. But the County has no similar process, and there's "no opportunity for the taxpayer to recover the excess value; once absolute title has transferred to the State, any excess value always remains with the State." Slip op. at 11.
• The Court also rejected the County's "constructive abandonment" argument, which went like this: Ms. Tyler impliedly abandoned her property when she failed to timely pay her property taxes. The Court held no, an owner must do more than neglect to pay her taxes. This isn't akin to situations in which the Court has found abandonment, such as where owners fail to make any use of their property. Here, the "keep the change" statute "gives no weight to the taxpayer's use of the property. Indeed, the delinquent taxpayer can continue to live in her house for years after falling behind in taxes, up until the government sells it." Slip op. at 14.
• Armstrong Batsignal:

The Takings Clause “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong, 364 U. S., at 49. A taxpayer who loses her $40,000 house to the State to fulfill a $15,000 tax debt has made a far greater contribution to the public fisc than she owed. The taxpayer must render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but no more.

• The Court also made short work of the County's argument that Ms. Tyler lacked standing because "she did not affirmatively 'disclaim the existence of other debts or encumbrances' on her home worth more than the $25,000 surplus." Slip op. at 3. The Court concluded that (a) none of these assertions were in the record, but even if there are such encumbrances, she still plausibly alleges a financial harm because even if the tax sale extinguishes other liens on the property, Ms. Tyler remained personally liable to the other lienor. And "[h]ad Tyler received the surplus from the tax sale, she could have at the very least used it to reduce any such liability." Slip op. at 4.
• We were really wishing for a citation to Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833) as a way of signaling more on the "where does property come from" issue, but were sadly disappointed. Not too much, mind you. Just a bit.

More to come as the analysis and commentary rolls in.

Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166 (U.S. May 25, 2023)

New Cert Petition: Forcing Owners To Rent To Tenants Indefinitely Is A Categorical Taking

Here's the latest in a case we've been following since its inception, this cert petition seeking Supreme Court review of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit's affirming the district court's dismissal of a complaint alleging that New York (state)'s sweeping amendments to its Rent Stabilization (rent control) statute effected categorical and Penn Central takings:

Petitioners’ physical-takings claims would have been allowed to proceed if they were brought in the Eighth Circuit. That is because the Eighth Circuit has correctly held that property owners plead a physical taking under Cedar Point where a law prohibits them from terminating a tenancy at the end of a lease term. See Heights Apartments, LLC v. Walz, 30 F.4th 720, 733 (8th Cir. 2022), reh’g en banc denied, 30 F.4th 720. But the Second Circuit held here—as has the Ninth Circuit—that the physical-takings principles articulated in Cedar Point are not implicated when an owner voluntarily offered housing for rent in the first instance. These courts instead read Yee v. City of Escondido, 503 U.S. 519 (1992), as precluding physical-takings claims so long as the property owner may evict tenants in the event they breach the lease or engage in other forms of malfeasance—thus carving out a special and particularly deferential landlord-tenant exception to the general principles articulated in Cedar Point. Those courts misread Yee, which reserved the question whether a taking would occur if a law forced “a landowner over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy.” Id. at 528.

In affirming the dismissal of Petitioners’ regulatory-takings claims, the Second Circuit also split from other circuits on every Penn Central factor. The court deemed irrelevant the impact that the law would have on Petitioners’ property rights, explaining that it was “of no moment” that they are forced to bear burdens that others are not. App. 16a. The court also viewed the character of the governmental action—which forces Petitioners to house tenants against their will—as counting against Petitioners’ claims because the law serves important public purposes and “courts are not in the business of second-guessing legislative determinations such as this one.” Id. The Second Circuit’s ruling confirms that this Court’s “current regulatory takings jurisprudence leaves much to be desired.” Bridge Aina Le’a, LLC v. Haw. Land Use Comm’n, 141 S. Ct. 731, 731 (2021) (Thomas, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari).

Pet. at 2-3.

Here are the Questions Presented:

Petitioners own small apartment buildings in New York City that are subject to New York’s Rent Stabilization Law (“RSL”). Once an owner leases a unit for a fixed term, the RSL grants the tenant and the ten-ant’s successors a perpetual right to renew the lease, regardless of whether the owner consents. That renewal right strips owners of their right to exclude others from their property and prevents them from living in their own apartments. The Second Circuit held that these facts failed to state a physical-takings claim because Petitioners voluntarily entered the rental market in the first instance and could, in some circumstances, evict tenants who breach their leases. Petitioners’ regulatory-takings claims likewise failed because, among other reasons, the RSL serves an important purpose and does not deprive petitioners’ property of all value. In so holding, the Second Circuit deepened or created circuit splits at each step of its analysis. The questions presented are:

1. Whether a law that prohibits owners from terminating a tenancy at the end of a fixed lease term, except on grounds outside the owner’s control, constitutes a physical taking.

2. Whether allegations that such a law conscripts private property for use as public housing stock, and thereby substantially reduces its value, state a regulatory takings claim.

Stay tuned.

Petition for a Writ of Ceritorari, 74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, No. ____ (U.S. May 17, 2023)

New Cert Petition: The Supreme Court Should Resolve The Legislatively-vs-Administratively Imposed Exactions Issue

When we last visited Sheetz v. El Dorado County, we finished with "stay tuned" because we suspected that the California Court of Appeal's opinion concluding that the County's traffic mitigation fee is immune from Nollan/Dolan nexus-and-rough-proportionality review because the legislature imposed the fee on everyone (and Sheetz was not subject to paying it because of an ad hoc agency decision) was not going to be the last word, either in the case or on the legislative exactions issue.

Well, now the predicted other shoe drop: the property owner has filed this cert petition, with this Question Presented:

George Sheetz applied to the County of El Dorado, California, for a permit to build a modest manufactured house on his property. Pursuant to legislation enacted by the County, and as the condition of obtaining the permit, Mr. Sheetz was required to pay a monetary exaction of $23,420 to help finance unrelated road improvements. The County demanded payment in spite of the fact that it made no individualized determination that the exaction—a substantial sum for Mr. Sheetz—bore an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” to the purported impacts associated with his modest project as required in Nollan v. Cal. Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374, 391 (1994).

Mr. Sheetz challenged the exaction as an unconstitutional condition under Nollan and Dolan. A California trial court upheld the exaction, holding that, because it was authorized by legislation, the exaction was immune from Nollan/Dolan review. In a published decision, the California Court of Appeal affirmed, and the California Supreme Court denied review. California’s judicially-created exemption from Nollan/Dolan scrutiny for legislative exactions conflicts with the decisions of other federal and state courts across the country, and is in strong tension with this Court’s more recent precedents.

The question presented is whether a permit exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan and Dolan simply because it is authorized by legislation.

The Sixth Circuit just last week held that these type of demands are subject to the nexus and rough-proportionality standards, and not rational basis review, deepening the lower court conflict.

So we shall say again: we don't think the California court's Sheetz opinion is the last word, so stay tuned.

Follow along here, or on the Court's docket.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari, Sheets v. County of El Dorado, No. 22-1074...

 

CA6: Legislative Conditions Are Subject To Nexus-And-Proportionality Requirements

A good opinion from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Knight v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, No. 21-6179 (May 10, 2023), holding that conditions imposed on every development -- and not just ad hoc administratively-imposed conditions -- must conform to the Nollan-Dolan-Koontz close nexus and rough proportionality standards.

You takings and land use mavens can stop right there, because you know what this means: the Sixth Circuit has added to the growing split in the lower courts about whether legislatively-imposed conditions on development which cover everyone are, as some courts characterize them, mere land use regulations subject only to Euclid's rational basis review, or are constrained by N-D-K 's requirements (see here, and here for examples). The Supreme Court has been presented with the lower court disagreement, but so far has not stepped in and resolved the issue.

The Sixth Circuit experienced no such qualms when considering a Nashville ordinance that conditions the grant of building permits on the owners agreeing to either grant an easement across their land and build a sidewalk on that easement, or give the city cash instead:

In particular, the parties here disagree over the “test” that we should use to judge whether the sidewalk ordinance commits a taking. The landowner plaintiffs ask us to apply the “unconstitutional-conditions” test that the Supreme Court adopted to assess conditions on building permits in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987). Nashville responds that the Court has applied Nollan’s test only to ad hoc administrative conditions that zoning officials impose on specific permit applicants—not generally applicable legislative conditions that city councils impose on all permit applicants. For legislative conditions, Nashville says, we should turn to the deferential “balancing” test that the Court adopted to assess zoning restrictions in Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104 (1978).

We side with the landowner plaintiffs. Nothing in the relevant constitutional text, history, or precedent supports Nashville’s distinction between administrative and legislative conditions. Nollan’s test thus should apply to both types, including those imposed by the sidewalk ordinance. Because the district court reached a contrary conclusion, we reverse its grant of summary judgment to Nashville and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Slip op. at 2.

We suggest you read the entire opinion -- it isn't long (29 pages) and it has pictures! -- because it really sets out the arguments, and there's even some takings history for you history buffs. The court concluded that the Takings Clause is a limit on legislative authority, not just executive power. See slip op. at 20.

And there's a whole lot of takings and property rights goodness in the opinion, including these:

• "The government does not always directly interfere with constitutional rights. It sometimes indirectly interferes with them by offering a benefit that it has no duty to provide on the condition that a party waive a right." Slip op. at 10.
• "But what rules divide constitutional from unconstitutional conditions on these otherwise discretionary benefits? One generic rule is clear: If the Constitution allows the government to directly compel a private party to undertake conduct on threat of criminal punishment, the government may indirectly compel that conduct as a condition on a benefit." Id.
• "Courts instead must look to a specific constitutional right to identify the specific rules. Id. at 913. This fact brings Nollan to the fore. It created a 'special unconstitutional-conditions framework for an “exaction” in the takings context. Slip op. at 10-11.
• "At first blush, Nashville’s enforcement of its sidewalk ordinance looks like a clear case for Nollan’s unconstitutional-conditions test." Slip op. at 14.
• "Does it matter that the sidewalk ordinance allowed Knight and Mayes to pay fees rather than build sidewalks? No again. Because these “commonplace” in-lieu fees resemble “other types of land use exactions,” Koontz held that they trigger Nollan’s test all the same." Slip op. at 16.
• See page 17 for the opinion's run-down of the different ways different courts go on this issue.
• "This case requires us to answer that question. We now hold that Nollan’s unconstitutional-conditions test applies just as much to legislatively compelled permit conditions as it does to administratively imposed ones. Nothing in the text or original understanding of the Takings Clause justifies Nashville’s requested distinction. Its requested distinction also conflicts both with the Supreme Court’s unconstitutional-conditions precedent and with its takings precedent." Slip op. at 18.

The court held that the "text and history" of the takings clause compelled the outcome, slip op. at 18- 22, as does "Supreme Court precedent." Slip op. at 22-72.

Having determined that Nashville's ordinance is subject to the nexus and proportionality requirements, the court concluded that the city waived the argument that the ordinance met the test: "Nashville has waived any argument that it can satisfy this unconstitutional-conditions test. Knight and Mayes spent pages of their brief arguing that the city could not meet Nollan’s and Dolan’s elements. ... But Nashville did not even try to respond, opting to rely exclusively on its claim that Penn Central’s test applied." Slip op. at 28.

Finally, the court thought about the remedy, and whether it is just compensation (here's your in-lieu fee back, property owner), or equitable relief in the form of a declaratory judgment or an injunction? See slip op. at 28. But the court didn't resolve that question and left it for the district court on remand.

Here are the briefs, including the amicus brief our own firm filed:

• Property Owners' Opening Brief
• Nashville's Answering Brief
• Owners' Reply Brief
• Pacific Legal Foundation's amicus brief in support of property owners

Is this decision the last word on the issue? Most certainly not, and this question won't be definitively resolved until the Supreme Court decides to decide. But in the interim, this one is good in the Sixth Circuit. 

Knight v. Metro. Gov't of Nashville, No. 21-6179 (6th Cir. May 10, 2023)

New (Michael Berger) Cert Petition: Knick "Changed the world of takings litigation" And Applies Retroactively - And Statutes Of Limitations Are Affirmative Defenses

Here's a new cert petition, filed this week by Michael Berger that asks whether Knick's no-need-to-exhaust-or-chase-state-compensation rule applies retroactively.

The Second Circuit held that no, the owner's claims were too late, and although Knick overruled the Williamson County rule that kept him from a timely filing in federal court, that's just too bad:

We also agree with the district court that the remaining claims are largely time barred. Demarest filed this lawsuit in June 2021, yet much of the conduct targeted by his complaint dates from long before. Since a § 1983 claim adopts the limitations period for a state personal injury tort-which in Vermont is three years, see Morse v. Univ. of Vt., 973 F.2d 122, 125-27 (2d Cir. 1992)-claims accruing before June 2018, which comprise the majority of Demarest's complaint, would be time barred. Although Demarest argues that his claims accrued only when a recent Supreme Court decision, Knick v. Twp. of Scott, Pennsylvania, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019), removed an impediment to his pursuing them, he is incorrect: "[a] decision recognizing a cause of action after the period has run does not retroactively interrupt the running of the limitations period." Fiesel v. Bd. of Educ. of N.Y.C., 675 F.2d 522, 524 (2d Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).

Arguing that Knick rewrote the script (and righted the ship that Williamson County had upended), the petition asks the Court to give retroactive effect to its rule.

To us, this makes a lot of sense because Knick wasn't so much a new rule as a return to normalcy. Williamson County was the aberration and the Court veering takings litigation and procedures off-track. Before Williamson County, a property owner could go to federal court with her federal takings claim, and she can now. It seems like this is just what retroactivity was meant for.

The petition also points out that the Second Circuit treated the statute of limitations as some kind of jurisdictional bar, and not a claims processing rule (hang on, that sounds familiar....).

Here are the Questions Presented:

The Court of Appeals refused to give retroactive effect to this Court’s landmark decision in Knick v. Township of Scott, 139 S.Ct. 2162 (2019), which opened the federal courts to constitutional property litigation for the first time in 34 years. Compounding that error, the Court of Appeals refused to grant rehearing to consider the impact of the then pending decision in Wilkins v. United States, 143 S.Ct. 870 (2023), which ended up restricting the impact of statutes of limitation. In combination, the Court of Appeals’ refusal to apply this Court’s current law deprived Petitioner of property without just compensation and due process of law.

The questions presented are:

1. When Knick changed the world of takings litigation by allowing—for the first time since 1985—a property owner with a claim for unconstitutional taking of property to file suit in federal court, must that decision be applied retroactively, with the time to file suit tolled until the date Knick was decided, so as to give its benefit to property owners who had been precluded from suing in federal court before?

2. When Wilkins confirmed in the real property context that statutes of limitation are not jurisdictional but are merely claim processing tools, must lower courts now treat statutes of limitation as affirmative defenses to be proved at trial by the defendant?

Are we going to follow along? You bet we are (and you should also).

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Demarest v. Town of Underhill, No. ____ (U.S. May 8, 2023)

This Just In - Florida Appeals Court: TDRs, Beekeeping, And Camping Are Not Economically-Beneficial Uses, So Downzoning Is A Lucas Taking

Shands Key, with the City of Marathon in the background

This just in: in Shands v. City of Marathon, No. 3D21-1987 (May 3, 2023), Florida's Third District Court of Appeals held that the city's downzoning the property (Shands Key, shown above in an exhibit from the Key West trial we participated in in June 2021) from General Use (density: one home per acre) to Conservation Offshore Island (one home per 10 acres; Shands Key is just under 8 acres) effected a Lucas taking.

We're not going to go into too much detail, because this case is one of ours. Our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Jeremy Talcott was the lead trial and appellate counsel, backed by Kady Valois.

Trial (and appeal) team after closing arguments in Key West:
Valois, inversecondemnation.com, Talcott

But we're not going to let you go without noting a few highlights from the Court of Appeal opinion:

• "This inverse condemnation appeal presents a novel issue regarding the role that transferred development rights (“TDRs”) occupy in adjudicating a per se as-applied regulatory taking claim advanced under the landmark case of Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992)." Slip op. at 1.
• "Finding that an award of TDRs and Building Permit Allocation System (“BPAS”) points, considered in tandem with the residual land value derived from personal recreation and beekeeping, precluded a per se as-applied claim, the trial court denied the motion. The primary issue on appeal is the propriety of that ruling." Slip op. at 1-2.
• "In the aftermath of Penn Central, Lucas, and their progeny, TDRs have emerged as a popular and effective tool for local governments to promote conservation efforts and urban growth management. Such rights typically benefit the landowner by allowing for expanded “development beyond the restricted level on [another] piece of land.” Ralph A. DeMeo, Transfer Development Rights, in II Florida Environmental and Land Use Law ch. 23 (1996)." Slip op. at 10.
• "The significance of TDRs in the regulatory takings matrix has been sharply debated. Some legal experts have opined that TDRs are irrelevant to the takings side of the equation because they do nothing to impact the nature and extent of the property interest taken by the government. Others have espoused the belief that TDRs necessarily mitigate the economic impact of regulation by infusing the property with value; therefore, they should be considered before determining whether the government has effectuated a taking." Slip op. at 10-11 (footnotes omitted).
• "Appellants established that regulation deprived them of any use of the property, other than for beekeeping or personal camping. These do not constitute economically beneficial uses, as 'a State may not evade the duty to compensate on the premise that the landowner is left with a token interest.' Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606, 631 (2001). As Justice Scalia observed in his Suitum concurrence, any income associated with TDRs does not flow from the cultivation or development of the property in the traditional framework of ownership. Instead, the potential revenue is generated from the non-use of the property." Slip op. at 13-14.
• "Consistent with this logic, while “[p]utting TDRs on the taking rather than the just compensation side of the equation . . . is a clever, albeit transparent, device that seeks to take advantage of a peculiarity of our Takings Clause jurisprudence,” doing so allows the government to provide some compensation without the constitutional stricture of just compensation. Suitum, 520 U.S. at 748–49 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)." Slip op. at 14.
• "To reason otherwise would render Lucas nugatory." Id.
• "In accord with the foregoing analysis, we conclude that appellants established overly burdensome government regulation deprived them of “all economically beneficial uses” of their property. Lucas, 505 U.S. at 1019. Consequently, they were entitled to an award of partial summary judgment on their per se as-applied Lucas claim. We therefore reverse and remand for the trial court to vacate the final judgment, enter partial summary judgment in favor of appellants, and conduct further proceedings consistent with this opinion." Slip op. at 17.

Here are the briefs of the parties, so you can see the arguments:

• Initial Brief On Merits (property owners)
• Appellee's Answer Brief (City)
• Appellant's Reply Brief (property owners)

Watch the court of appeal oral arguments (YouTube) here.

A hearty well done to our PLF team for this big win.

Shands v. City of Marathon, No. 3D21-1987 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. May 3, 2023)

New Cert Petition: Is Barring You From Accessing Your Own Property A Categorical Taking?

Here's the cert petition in a case we've been following. 

This is the one where a North Carolina county went bonkers in the early days of Co-19, and truly "locked down" by banning nonresident property owners from entering the county. This wasn't done all at once, but in phases, with nonresident property owners being informed that if they didn't get to their Dare County homes by March 20, they were going to be prohibited from even entering the county. As the Fourth Circuit put it, "In effect, Dare County told non-resident property owners:'“If you want to quarantine at your beach house, get there by March 20.' This gave non-resident property owners four days to travel to the county."

Blackburn was stopped from accessing his property for 45 days.

The Fourth Circuit upheld the district court's rejection of his takings claim, concluding that this was not a physical invasion or occupation ("But temporarily excluding an owner from their own property differs from eliminating the owner’s right to exclude."), nor was it a total or near-total deprivation of the property's beneficial uses. 

The owner has now sought Supreme Court review.

Here's the Question Presented:

Whether a governmental regulation prohibiting all physical access to a landowner’s property is a “per se” taking under the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Stay tuned. Follow along here, or on the Court's docket.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Blackburn v. Dare County, No. 22-1048 (U.S. Apr. 25, 2023)

Tyler SCOTUS Takings Argument Round-Up

Our Pacific Legal Foundation Property Rights Litigation Tyler team,
and Counsel of Record Christina Martin (second from right)

Here are your links to the buzz about Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, our law firm's case which argues that Hennepin County's seizure of Ms. Tyler's condo and then keeping the excess equity over what she owed in property taxes and fees, is an uncompensated taking of private property, and also violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

• Transcript and audio recording of the oral arguments.
• Kelsey Reichmann, Grandma who lost her house to debt finds high court sympathy (Courthouse News Service)
• Lawprof Ilya Somin, Unusual Cross-Ideological Agreement in Tyler v. Hennepin County (Volokh Conspiracy)
• Steve Osunsami, Laura Romero, Dr. Mark Abdelmalek, Doug Vollmayer, Supreme Court takes on what critics call predatory tax foreclosure practice (Good Morning America)
• Amy Howe, Justices appear likely to side with homeowner in foreclosure dispute (SCOTUSblog)
• Mark Sherman, Supreme Court seems to favor woman who got $0 in condo sale (Associated Press)

More on the way. Stay tuned.

Today's Takings SCOTUS Oral Argument Transcript And Recording: Tyler v. Hennepin County

Coffee is for closers.
(Yes, we were up and at the desk at 4 a.m. local time
to listen live. We just needed a direct injection of coffee.)

Here is the transcript, and the audio recording of today's U.S. Supreme Court arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, our law firm's case which argues that Hennepin County's keeping the excess equity in Ms. Tyler's home over what she owed in property taxes and fees, is an uncompensated taking of private property, and also violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

We will bring you the analysis of the arguments and the pundits' predictions in a subsequent posts. But for the time being here these are in case you missed out listening live. Stay tuned.

Transcript, Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166 (U.S. Apr. 26, 2023)

More SCOTUS Takings Previews (Argument Tomorrow, 10am ET)

Tomorrow, Wednesday, April 26, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time, the U.S. Supreme Court will be hearing oral arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, our law firm's case which argues that Hennepin County's keeping the excess equity in Ms. Tyler's home over what she owed in property taxes and fees, is an uncompensated taking of private property, and also violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

Listen to the arguments live, here.

We posted some preview links earlier this week here. But wait, there's more!

• Amy Howe, Court to hear dispute over confiscated condo title and sale (SCOTUSblog).
• George Will, The county seized her condo, sold it and kept all the money. Not nice. (Washington Post).
• Anthony Francois, Nancie Marzulla & John Bursch, Courthouse Steps Preview: Tyler v. Hennepin County (Federalist Society) (video)
• Perry Cooper, Seized Home Sold for Profit Set for Supreme Court Consideration (Bloomberg Law)
• Cases & Controversies Podcast, Supreme Court Abortion Dispute, Ethics Sage Intesify (includes PLF attorney David Deerson on Tyler) (Bloomberg Law)

Stay tuned.

Ninth Circuit Invalidates Berkeley's Too-Clever-By-Half Ban On New Natural Gas Piping

Proving there's more than one way to protect property rights and, you know, our basic freedom to (1) diversify our energy uses so when the power goes out as it frequently does in California, we don't lose the use of every single appliance and modern convenience, and (2) heat up our dinner the way humans have been doing it for a long time, in California Restaurant Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, No. 21-16276 (Apr. 17, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit invalidated Berkeley, California's too-cute-by-half attempt to ban new gas appliances.

Gas stoves are the latest villain from The Land of No (aka The Golden State), but instead of trying to ban gas stoves directly (after all, a crafty home chef might just go to Emeryville or Albany and obtain one of these kitchen cabinet Death Stars, at least until those cities also get on the Berkeley bandwagon), Berkeley got clever: it adopted an ordinance that banned gas piping in new construction under the Building Code. Buy and install all the gas stoves you like, homebuilder; there'll just be nothing to hook it up to. A gas stove without gas piping is like an assault rifle without bullets.

And after all, what can be more local than a building code? The ordinance also expressly disclaimed that it was prohibiting, you know, gas stoves or anything, or mandating electric. No, it was merely eliminating "obsolete natural gas infrastructure and associated greenhouse gas emissions," which will help save the planet.

The Restaurant Association sued, asserting the ordinance was preempted both by California and federal law -- in the latter case, the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. § 6297(c).

Now we're a takings and property blog, so we are not going to go into the preemption details, which frighten and confuse us. You can read the opinion yourself if you are a preemption nerd. The bottom line, in our reading of the opinion, is that the EPCA prohibits any state or local laws that concern energy efficiency, or use. The court concluded that Berkeley's ordinance involved "energy use." As the opinion notes:

Berkeley’s main contention is that its Ordinance doesn’t regulate “energy use” because it bans natural gas rather than prescribes an affirmative “quantity of energy.” While Berkeley concedes that a prohibition on natural gas infrastructure reduces the energy consumed by natural gas appliances in new buildings to “zero,” it argues that “zero” is not a “quantity” and so the Ordinance is not an “energy use” regulation. But that defies the ordinary meaning of “quantity.”

Slip op. at 13.

There's more, both in the opinions (46 pages to cover the majority and the two separate concurring opinions), and in the media, where it has generated a lot of coverage and analysis, including these:

• Federal court strikes down a California city's natural gas ban (Emma Newburger, CNBC)
• Does the 9th Circuit’s rejection of Berkeley, CA’s municipal gas ban spell doom for Massachusetts’ own gas-banning “Demonstration Program”? (Paula M. Devereaux, Pierce Atwood's Massachusetts Dirt and Development Law blog)

Given the tenor of the times, we seriously doubt that this is the last word on this topic, either in this case or overall. Berkeley ain't a quitter after all, and it sure knows how to double-down on those municipal policies that have resulted in its two main nicknames, "Berzerkely," and "The People's Republic of Berkeley." Maybe calling out the National Guard to take those gas stoves quartered in your homes? (Don't give them ideas!)

Now if only we could reduce the greenhouse gas emissions from politicians, we'd be going a long way to saving the planet. One can dream, can't one?

California Restaurant Ass'n v. City of Berkeley, No. 21-16278 (9th Cir. Apr. 17, 2023)

CA9 (unpub.): You Can Never Adequately Plead A Facial Penn Central Taking For City Zoning Restrictions

If everything the Ninth Circuit says in its unpublished memorandum opinion in Craneveyor Corp. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, No. 22-55435 (Apr. 20, 2023) is accurate, there's no way to ever draft a complaint alleging a facial Penn Central regulatory taking that will survive a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.

From what we can gather (this is an unpublished memorandum opinion, after all), the property owner asserted a facial takings challenge to some sort of zoning regulations that restrict its use of two parcels it owns. We're not sure what restrictions. See slip op. at 2 ("The complaint asserts a facial takings challenge under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to a city zoning plan that allegedly restricts development on two parcels of land owned by CraneVeyor.").

Two theories: Lucas and Penn Central.

The court made short work on the facial Lucas claim, concluding that because the owner "acknowledges that the [zoning], on its face, does not prohibit all development in fault zones[, that] ... CraneVeyor has not stated a claim for a facial Lucas taking." Slip op. at 3.

The facial Penn Central claim fared no better. The court assumed without deciding that a property owner may assert a facial Penn Central claim, and proceeded to analyze the three Penn Central factors:

• Economic impact. "[I]nsufficient." Slip op. at 3. Why? Because "[v]aluable uses remain on CraneVeyor's land. According to the city, CraneVeyor could build up to two residential units on its first parcel. And the [zoning] ppermits livestock and poultry keeping on the second parcel." First, what does the (alleged) existence of "valuable uses" vel non remaining on the property have to do with whether the complaint is properly pleaded? This isn't a Lucas theory, which requires some kind of near-wipeout of economically beneficial uses; this this is Penn Central where there's no minimum threshold of economic loss, and even having a lot of "valuable uses" remaining in the after condition might be overcome by significant proof of the other two factors. Second, this was an appeal from a 12(b)(6) dismissal, yet (a) the court takes the city's word that there are other valuable uses remaining, and (b) the court apparently makes some kind of conclusion that the complaint didn't adequately allege the remaining uses are insufficient. So, Ninth Circuit, what percentage is sufficient that we have to plead? Your guess is as good as ours.
• Distinct investment-backed expectations. Nope. No landowner can reasonably expect to be free of zoning. And the owner didn't chase vesting, so there's that.
• Character. This is a regulatory taking, not a physical invasion. And zoning laws ain't facially takings.

Can all this be explained by the fact that the court was dealing with a facial Penn Central claim? Your guess is as good as ours. But if that's the case, wouldn't it just be easier to simply say there's no way to plead a facial claim for an "ad hoc" test, rather than potentially screw up the doctrine when down the road, someone inevitably tries to apply the court's analysis to a complaint asserting an as-applied Penn Central claim?

Craneveyor Corp. v. City of Rancho Cucamonga, No. 22-55435 (9th Cir. Apr. 20, 2023) (mem.)

SCOTUS To Weigh In On Due Process In Civil Forfeiture

The Court has already started loading up next Term's property rights docket, with last week's grant of this cert petition.

Before we go further, a disclosure: our law firm colleague Deborah La Fetra filed an amicus brief urging the Court to grant review. Thus, we're not going to be taking a deep dive into the issues, but will leave that to others. Luckily, lawprof Ilya Somin (as is often the case) beat us to the punch, analyzing the issues in "Supreme Court Decides to Hear Important Asset Forfeiture Procedural Property Rights Case" at the Volokh Conspiracy. Check it out.

Here's the Question Presented:

In determining whether the Due Process Clause requires a state or local government to provide a post seizure probable cause hearing prior to a statutory judicial forfeiture proceeding and, if so, when such a hearing must take place, should district courts apply the "speedy trial" test employed in United States v. $8,850, 461 U.S. 555 (1983) and Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972), as held by the Eleventh Circuit or the three-part due process analysis set forth in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319 (1976) as held by at least the Second, Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

Will we be following along as the case progresses? Of course. Or you can follow the Court's docket here.

Petition for a Writ of Certiorari, Culley v. Marshall, No. 22-585 (cert. granted Apr. 17, 2023)

Get Ready For SCOTUS Takings Arguments (Wednesday, April 26, 2023)

Take a deep dive into the arguments and amicus briefs

This Wednesday, April 26, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, our law firm's case which argues that Hennepin County's keeping the excess value in Ms. Tyler's home over what she owed in property taxes and fees, is an uncompensated taking of private property, and also violates the Excessive Fines Clause.

Here are links to programs, summaries, and events to help you understand the arguments and issues, as well as registration for post-argument analysis:

• The Supreme Court Takes Up ‘Home-Equity Theft’ - Wall St. Journal. An op-ed by our Pacific Legal Foundation colleague Christina Martin, Counsel of Record for the property owner and arguing counsel.
• Deep Dive and Amicus Review: Tyler v. Hennepin County - the recording of last week's PLF webinar previewing the arguments, and focusing on the myriad amici briefs which have been filed. Click here, or wat. All briefs are posted on the Court's docket page here.
• The same day as the arguments at 2pm Eastern Time, the Federalist Society will hold a "Courthouse Steps" program, at which Ms. Martin will provide her thoughts on the arguments. Register here.
• For those of you in the Beltway, at 4:30pm Eastern Time on the day of argument, PLF will host "Home Equity Theft at the Supreme Court," an in-person program at the Top of the Hill Banquet & Conference Center, in Washington, D.C. Ms. Martin (busy day!) and other experts will answer questions. Register here.

We'll put up more links and materials over the next few days. But again, because this is one of our firm's cases, we won't be commenting that much (other than Go Christina and Geraldine! (Tyler)).

CA6: Taking Occurs, And Statute Of Limitations Begins To Run, When Foreclosure Redemption Period Expires And Not Before

In what the court termed a "matter of first impression," slip op. at 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held in Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, No. 22-3600 (Apr. 21, 2023), that the statute of limitations in a § 1983 takings claim for a local government's alleged home equity theft (for more on that issue, see here) began to run when the period when a homeowner can redeem a foreclosure ended, and not when (as the government argued) the government made the decision to acquire the home (the final adjudication of foreclosure).

As the majority noted:

The dispositive issue in this appeal is what constituted the “act of taking.” See id. In other words, the Court must determine when, as a matter of law, the County took BSI’s property without paying for it. See id. The County argues that the taking occurred when it made a final decision regarding BSI’s property, which it asserts was the final adjudication of foreclosure. BSI argues, by contrast, that the County took its property on the date the County transferred the property to the land bank. This appears to be a matter of first impression.

Slip op. at 5.

We suggest you read the opinion because (1) it isn't that long (11 pages, including the dissenting opinion), and (2) as all takings statute of limitations opinions do, it also backhandedly deals with the flip-side issue of when a takings case is ripe. As the majority noted, the SOL only begins once a case is ripe, and both dates are based on when the taking occurs. The court rejected the government's argument than an earlier decision controlled. The majority concluded that the case involved ripeness, but "is still relevant, however, because it provides the general principle that for a taking to occur, 'there must be a 'final decision' to take the property, ... meaning that it is 'known to a reasonable degree of certainty' what will happen to the property ...." Slip op. at 6.

The end of the redemption period -- the window in which the property owner could effectively pull out of the dive and get the property back -- was the first point in time where the taking could have occurred. If the owner paid up, "the County would have been prohibited from taking the property." Slip op. at 7. This was also the first time that it became clear that the County would seize it. Yes, it decided to take the property earlier when it entered a final decision of foreclosure, but no actual acquisition was possible until the owner let the redemption period lapse. See id. ("until that time, whether the County would transfer title was unclear").

One judge dissented, and would have agreed with the County that deciding to take the property by foreclosing was the operative event. The complaint was complaining about the transfer, not the lapse of the redemption period, the dissent argued. See Dissent at 10. That's when the property owner knew it was injured:

Here, the injury forming the basis of BSI’s action was the County’s decision to direct the transfer of BSI’s property to the County’s land bank. Thus, the key event alerting BSI to protect its rights was the BOR’s final adjudication of foreclosure on June 3, 2019, which ordered that direct transfer. At that time, BSI knew or had reason to know that the County would transfer its property in lieu of sale.

Id.

To the dissent, that decision was also the "final decision" for ripeness purposes. Which is the same date the statute of limitations clock began ticking. When the taking took place is a separate inquiry (at least according to the dissenting judge).

What do you think about this one? What accounts for the different world views of the majority and dissent? Is the majority viewing this as more akin to a physical taking, where compensation is owed when the property is transferred from the owner to the County? And is the dissent seeing this as a regulatory taking where it is the "final decision" to take without compensation that renders the claim for compensation ripe?

We know which way we see it - what about you?

Beaver Street Investments, LLC v. Summit County, No. 22-3600 (6th Cir. Apr. 21, 2023)

Hawaii Supreme Court To Hear Major Severance Damages Appeal In Rail Takings Cases

Update: the court has rescheduled the arguments to June 22, 2023, at 10 a.m.

The Hawaii Supreme Court has scheduled oral arguments in an important eminent domain case about severance damages for the Honolulu Rail Authority's condemnation of land in Honolulu for one of its stations (assuming, of course, that the under-construction rail line actually gets past downtown, or simply stops where its historic predecessor, the Oahu Railway terminated more than a century ago).

Here's the details and the court's description of the issues (scroll to the bottom), from the Hawaii Judiciary's web site.

[Barista's note: we won't be commenting on this one in detail, because this was our case when we were in private practice.]

Thursday May 18, 2023 – 10 a.m.

NOS.

SCAP-22-0000335 (Consolidated with Nos. SCAP-22-0000336,
SCAP-22-0000337, SCAP-22-0000338, SCAP-22-0000340,
SCAP-22-0000341, SCAP-22-0000343 SCAP-22-0000344,
SCAP-22-0000345, AND SCAP-22-0000352)

SCAP-22-0000335, SCAP-22-0000336, SCAP-22-0000337,
SCAP-22-0000340, SCAP-22-0000341, SCAP-22-0000343,
SCAP-22-0000344, AND SCAP-22-0000345

CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, acting by and through the HONOLULU AUTHORITY FOR RAPID TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/
Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. VICTORIA WARD, LIMITED, a Delaware Corporation; et al., Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and 1240 ALA MOANA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; et al., Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; et al., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.

SCAP-22-0000338 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, acting by and through the HONOLULU AUTHORITY FOR RAPID TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant, vs. VICTORIA WARD, LIMITED, a Delaware Corporation; et al., Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellants/Cross-Appellees, and 1240 ALA MOANA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; et al., Defendants-Appellants/ Cross-Appellees, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; et al., Defendants-Appellees/Cross-Appellees.

SCAP-22-0000352 CITY AND COUNTY OF HONOLULU, acting by and through the HONOLULU AUTHORITY FOR RAPID TRANSPORTATION, Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant-Appellant, vs. VICTORIA WARD, LIMITED, a Delaware Corporation; et al., Defendants/ Counterclaim Plaintiffs-Appellees, and 1240 ALA MOANA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; et al., Defendants-Appellees, and WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, a national banking association; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

The above-captioned cases have been set for argument on the merits at:

Supreme Court Courtroom
Aliʻiōlani Hale, 2nd Floor
417 South King Street
Honolulu, HI 96813

The oral argument will also be livestreamed for public viewing via the Judiciary’s YouTube channel at YouTube.com/hawaiicourts.

Attorneys for City and County of Honolulu, acting by and through the Honolulu Authority for Rapid Transportation:

Terence J. O’Toole, Sharon V. Lovejoy, and Lindsay E. Orman, of Starn O’Toole Marcus & Fisher; Paul S. Aoki, and Rozelle A. Agag, Deputies Corporation Counsel

Attorneys for Victoria Ward, Limited, et al.:

Mark M. Murakami, Gregory W. Kugle, Nicholas K. Ernst, and Clinton K. Hamada of Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert

NOTE: Order Granting Application for Transfer, filed 10/13/22.

NOTE: Certificate of Recusal, by Associate Justice Paula A. Nakayama, filed 4/19/23.

NOTE: Order assigning Chief Judge of the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, R. Mark Browning due to recusal and Circuit Court of the First Circuit, Judge James S. Kawashima due to a vacancy, filed 4/19/23.

COURT: Recktenwald, C.J., McKenna, and Eddins, JJ., and Chief Circuit Judge Browning, in place of Nakayama, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Kawashima assigned by reason of vacancy

Brief Description:

These interlocutory appeals arise out of a condemnation action filed in 2018 by HART against Victoria Ward to take several acres of Victoria Ward’s mixed-use development community located in the Kakaʻako neighborhood of Honolulu (Ward Village). The purpose of HART’s taking was to construct a segment of railway and the Kakaʻako Station within Ward Village.

A number of the appeals at issue concern Victoria Ward’s claims for severance damages. The Hawaiʻi Community Development Authority (HCDA) issued Victoria Ward a Master Plan Permit in 2009. The Master Plan Permit states, in part: “a more detailed transit route and station location shall be addressed and incorporated.” The parties disagree as to whether this language in the Master Plan Permit, together with Victoria Ward’s conduct, preclude Victoria Ward from recovering severance damages for impacts to non-taken property.

The circuit court issued a number of summary judgment orders precluding Victoria Ward from seeking severance damages. The circuit court also ruled on several related matters, specifying that “blight of summons” interest accrual would be paused during the pendency of the interlocutory appeals, and that Victoria Ward may not recover for loss of a luxury tower that allegedly could have been built on the site of the Kakaʻako station, for relocation of units from that tower to less valuable locations, for severance damages to property stipulated to be distinct from those where condemnations took place, or for replacing lost parking if replacement costs exceed loss in value. HART appeals from other circuit court rulings, including those specifying that some of Victoria Ward’s damages may not be offset by certain alleged “special benefits” flowing from the rail project.

We granted transfer and consolidated HART and Victoria Ward’s appeals for all purposes including oral argument and disposition.

The arguments will be live-streamed if you cannot make it in person to the court.

Tyler v. Hennepin County Previews: Get Yourself Prepared For The Next SCOTUS Takings Arguments

Here at our law firm, we're getting ready as one of our colleagues prepares to argue the Supreme Court's next takings case in a couple of weeks. Yes, this is what we've alternatively called the "home equity theft" or the "keep the change" case where government seizes property to satisfy the owner's tax debt, and after liquidation of the property and satisfaction of the debt, keeps any excess equity instead of returning the balance to the (former) homeowner.

The case is Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, and it's set for argument on the last day of this term's argument calendar, Wednesday, April 26, 2023.

In the meantime you should check out the parties' merits briefs and the beaucoup amici briefs (mostly filed in support of the property owner) on the Court's docket.

But you should also see what others have to say, and how they are viewing the issues. Here are several upcoming programs and an article you might want to check out:

• Deep Dive and Amicus Review: Tyler v. Hennepin County (Pacific Legal Foundation [our firm] April 19, 2023, at 2:00 p.m. EDT/11:00 a.m. PDT)
• Courthouse Steps Preview: Tyler v. Hennepin County (Federalist Society, April 17, 2023, 1pm EDT)
• ABA publishes article by True North Law’s Steve Davis on Upcoming Property-Rights Case at the Supreme Court: Tyler v. Hennepin County (April 11, 2023, via True North Law and the ABA)

Again, because this is one of our firm's cases, I won't be commenting much and will simply point you to resources. (You already know what I think about the case.)

New Article: Alex Boone, "The Tide's Coming In: A New Case for Beachfront Property Rights in South Carolina" (Wm & Mary Envt' L & Pol'y Rev)

Check this out, a new student-authored note from William and Mary third-year law student Alex Boone, "The Tide's Coming In: A New Case for Beachfront Property Rights in South Carolina," 47 Wm. & Mary Envtl. L. & Pol'y Rev. 383 (2023).

Here's the Abstract:

Part I of this Note explores the scientific data as it relates to the impending consequences of climate change on South Carolina’s coast and will introduce the disastrous scenarios that are predicted to arise as a result of rising sea levels and the accelerating strength and severity of extreme weather events. Part II compares the effectiveness of various coastal resiliency tools and highlights the regulatory framework that prohibits their use by beachfront property owners. Part III explores the topic of regulatory takings and their indirect prophylactic nature of protecting citizens from regulatory overreach and offers a case for a South Carolina court to find that the state’s regulations create an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. Lastly, Part IV recommends a policy change designed to mitigate the consequences of the CTWA [Coastal Tidelands and Wetlands Act] on South Carolinians in the absence of a judicial finding that the CTWA constitutes a regulatory taking.

It's really rewarding to see this kind of writing and analysis from a law student. Yes, we appreciate the subject-matter and the conclusion (naturally), but that aside, it is a good day when a soon-to-be colleague does this kind of work and lays it all out there for the world to see. Congratulations to the ELPR editors, and especially to Mr. Boone!

April 27, 2023, 5-7pm, Honolulu: Join Us To Celebrate The Work And Career Of Professor David Callies

Come join us on Thursday, April 27, 2023, from 5-7pm, downtown Honolulu, to celebrate the retirement of Professor David L. Callies from the University of Hawaii Law School.

Join U.H. Law School Dean Camille Nelson, Professor Callies' colleagues, his students (present and former), the Hawaii legal community, and family and friends as we honor 43 years of scholarship, teaching, service, and practice.

Professor Callies is a prolific scholar and author, and has mentored generations of lawyers. Known especially for his work in property, land use, takings, administrative law, and state and local government law, he has also been presented with numerous awards including William and Mary's Brigham-Kanner Property Rights Prize, and the Owner's Counsel of America's Crystal Eagle. 

Invitation and how to RSVP (or click below). Space is limited, so please let us know you are attending as soon as you can.

Details:

Thursday, April 27, 2023
5:00-7:00 p.m.

Second Floor Gallery
Pauahi Tower
1003 Bishop Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

Validated parking: Bishop Square garage (entrance on Alakea Street)

RSVP: [email protected]

See you there!

Professor David Callies - Retirement Celebration Invitation Apr. 27, 2023

Join Us At The 22d Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference, April 13-14, Austin

If you are in the Austin area (or anywhere in Texas for that matter), please consider joining us April 13 and 14, 2023 for the 22d Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference.

Two days of great programming and talking shop, plus a chance to connect and re-connect with friends and colleagues. And, of course, all the things Austin has to offer. Yes were were there not that long ago, but come on...Austin is a great conference venue, right?

We're speaking about "National Eminent Domain and Takings Trends," and the balance of the program is pretty darn good also (see here or below for the full agenda).

Registration ongoing, but space is filling up fast so don't miss out.

See you there.

Agenda & Program, 22d Annual Texas Eminent Domain Conference (CLE Int'l), Austin, Apr. 13-14, 2023)

Bust A Deal, Face The Wheel: NYC Rendering Commercial Lease Guaranty Clauses Unenforceable For Co-19 Violates Contracts Clause

This just in: the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York has issued this Opinion & Order in the case which challenges New York City's rendering "guaranty clauses" in commercial leases unenforceable due to the declared Co-19 emergency.

This is a case we've been following. Earlier, the Second Circuit vacated the district court's dismissal of the case, holding that the city's ordinance rendering forever unenforceable certain provisions in commercial leases:

A provision in a commercial lease or other rental agreement involving real property located within the city that provides for one or more natural persons who are not the tenant under such agreement to become, upon the occurrence of a default or other event, wholly or partially personally liable for payment of rent, utility expenses or taxes owed by the tenant under such agreement, or fees and charges relating to routine building maintenance owed by the tenant under such agreement, shall not be enforceable against such natural persons if the conditions of paragraph 1 and 2 are satisfied.

The district court held that the plaintiffs have Article III standing, because they have been permanently barred from ever enforcing these guaranty clauses. Slip op. at 12 ("This kind of 'monetary injury' to the Plaintiffs—permanently barring them from collecting more than a hundred thousand dollars in unpaid rent for a prime commercial tenancy in the heart of Manhattan—plainly establishes that they ha[ve] suffered a concrete injury in fact under Article III.'"). The court also concluded that the remedy the plaintiffs seek -- invalidation -- would redress that injury, because freed of the city's prohibition, plaintiffs could then attempt to enforce the clauses in their leases.

The heart of the ruling starts of page 14 of the slip opinion. The bottom line is that the court concluded the ordinance is a substantial impairment of the commercial owner/tenant contracts, because

Yes, "the City's effort to mitigate the devastating economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic constituted a legitimate public purpose[,]" slip op. at 16, but that does not get the city off the hook, because "the Court finds that the Law fails to withstand means-ends scrutiny under the final prong of the Sullivan test." Id. 

The court concluded that the city failed to support with additional evidence its decision to place the entire burden of alleviating the emergency on property owners. The city argued that the ordinance merely encouraged owners to renegotiate their leases on terms more favorable to their tenants, but the court wasn't buying it: "But it does not explain how the City concluded, with a change to the commercial leases rendering guaranty clauses permanently unenforceable, that guarantors would have any incentive based on the Law to enter negotiations with landlords regarding unpaid rent." Slip op. at 28.

There were four other reasons set out in the Opinion & Order, and the one we're going to focus on is set out starting on page 31. There, the court held that the ordinance does not compensate property owners for unpaid rent. Unlike other laws of this nature which included what we might call "mitigation" provisions (and were temporary), the court noted that New York's ordinance did no such thing, and permanently wiped out the obligation and did not contain any provision mitigating the damage to the owners, or otherwise providing for compensation:

The record now confirms that Plaintiff Bochner has been unable to recover unpaid rent amounts totaling approximately $110,000, and that, via another business account, he paid $35,000 in taxes for the property due July 1, 2020. Dkt. 104, Ex. NN at 46. As neither party disputes, the Guaranty Law itself provides no assistance to landlords like Bochner. The City, however, argues that the Court should concentrate on the fact that Bochner did not pay property takes on 287 7th Avenue from a personal account, see Def. Mem. at 20 n.12, and that Plaintiff 7th Avenue was able to obtain a pandemic relief loan from the SBA, see id. at 24. The City also emphasizes Plaintiffs were able to borrow from other successful business ventures, and that they “weather[ed] the pandemic” in other ways, including because the tenant left behind restaurant fixtures which were then leased along with the commercial space to a different restaurant in October 2020. Def. 56.1 ¶¶ 102–03; Dkt. 104, Ex. NN 34:24–35:18, 55:17–18.

Such obfuscation is unavailing. The fact remains that Plaintiffs here were damaged, to the tune of approximately $150,000, and have not been compensated—precisely the concern that the Second Circuit wanted the City to address on remand. As to the SBA disaster loan, Bochner explained that it has not been forgiven, and that he must pay “four [or] five” percent interest until it is fully paid off. Dkt. 104, Def. Ex. VV, at 46–47.

Slip op. at 32.  

No way the city quits, so next stop we presume is back with the Second Circuit.

Opinion & Order, Melendez v. City of New York, No. 1:20-cv-05301-RA (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 31, 2023)52

CA4: Exactions Takings Claim Accrues When Owner Knows Of The Demand, Not When It Paid

As most of you probably already know, there's a demon lurking out there in takings claims. Not of the Levon Helm-narrated The Right Stuff variety, but maybe just as deadly in litigation.

That's right, the too-early-or-too-late thing (or in some cases, the too-early-and-too-late argument). Getting caught between arguments that a takings claim isn't ripe, and arguments that it is too late (statutes of limitation).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit was dealing with the latter (a statute of limitations) in Epcon Homestead, LLC v. Town of Chapel Hill, No. 21-1713 (Mar. 20, 2023), but there are lessons in the case for the other side of the issue, ripeness.

The facts are pretty straightforward. If you are going to build at least five single-family units, the town's zoning ordinance contains a requirement of "inclusionary zoning" (aka affordable housing; aka below-market units. Or if you don't want to build such housing, you can pony up some cash if the town agrees.

The owner of the property wanted to build 63 units so was subject to this requirement. It didn't want to build affordable units, so opted to pay cash (approximately $800k). The town agreed, and conditioned its issuance of a special use permit which would allow the project to proceed on the developer paying this in-lieu fee: no certificates of occupancy would issue until the fee was paid.

Then Epcon bought the property. It built the 63 homes, and sold them. It made the first installment payment for the in-lieu fee, and two years later paid the final payment. Voila, certificates of occupancy. 

Next stop, state court where Epcon asserted the in-lieu fee was illegal under a variety of theories, including a section 1983 claim that the fee was an unconstitutional taking and violated Epcon's due process rights. The town removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss the federal claims because the lawsuit was filed more than three years after the in-lieu condition was imposed (it had been four years).

As we all know, section 1983 does not have a built-in SOL, so the courts have held that the SOL of the closest state-law analogy applies. In North Carolina, that's three years. The District Court agreed with the town and dismissed. You snoozed, so you lose Epcon.

The Fourth Circuit agreed. We suggest you go read pages 9-11 of the opinion for the reasons why. The bottom line is that "there is no 'distinctive rule' in the Takings Clause context to apply for determining when the limitations period for a § 1983 claim begins to run[,]" and the usual ("standard") rule applies: a 1983 claim is ready when the plaintiffs knows or has reason to know that it is injured. Slip op. at 9. But when did the injury here occur?

Epcon argued it wasn't really injured until it finished paying. Not so, held the Fourth Circuit, it was injured when it learned of the special use permit condition after it purchased the property.

Here, Epcon alleges that it suffered an injury under § 1983 stemming from the application of an unlawful special use permit condition. As the district court concluded, Epcon first had reason to know of this injury no later than 2015, when it began purchasing the land subject to the special use permit. Thus, its claim that the permit condition violated its rights to just compensation and due process accrued at that point and extinguished three years later. By the time Epcon filed suit in October 2019, the sun had set on its federal claims.

Slip op. at 9 (footnote omitted).

The court rejected Epcon's argument that the injury occurred when it was compelled to actually pay the fees, and that happened when it went to the town for the certificates of occupancy. And this isn't a regulatory takings claim, Epson asserted. If it were, the SOL clock might have started earlier. No, this is an unconstitutional conditions claim, and that's different. Slip op. at 10. We didn't lose our property right until we paid, it argued.

We disagree, the court held. "The distinction Epcon attempts to draw between exactions and regulatory takings proves little more than that the government need not physically appropriate property to enact a taking." Slip op. at 10. [Barista's note: "enact" a taking?]

And here's your money quote: "Once the government conditions the grant of a land-use permit on the surrender of a landowner’s right to just compensation, a Takings Clause claim becomes cognizable." Slip op. at 10. In other words, once that happens, the lawsuit window is open and the SOL clock is ticking. In other words, the claim is ripe.

Remember that one the next time the government argues an exaction case isn't ripe because the action being challenged as unconstitutional (the government's demand, and the subsequent owner payment) isn't complete.

Epcon Homestead, LLC v. Town of Chapel Hill, No. 21-1713 (4th Cir. Mar. 20, 2023)

New Cert Petition: Do You Need Statutory Authorization To Sue For A Taking?

Check this out, a recently-filed cert petition in a case we've been following, filed by our friends and colleagues at the Institute for Justice. This one involves an issue we've been on top of also, most recently in these two cases (see here and here).

That is, what does the Supreme Court's description of the Takings Clause as "self-executing" actually mean? Do you need statutory authorization in order to bring a takings or just compensation claim, or can you sue directly under the Constitution?

In Devillier v. Texas, No. 21-40750 (Nov. 12, 2022), the Fifth Circuit's cryptic opinion concluded that "the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right to action for takings against a state[.]" Slip op. at 1-2. Here's the entirety of the decision (minus footnotes):

The State of Texas appeals the district court’s decision that Plaintiffs’ federal Taking Clause claims against the State may proceed in federal court. Because we hold that the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause as applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment does not provide a right of action for takings claims against a state, we VACATE the district court’s decision for want of jurisdiction and REMAND with instructions to return this case to the state courts. The Supreme Court of Texas recognizes takings claims under the federal and state constitutions, with differing remedies and constraints turning on the character and nature of the taking; nothing in this description of Texas law is intended to replace its role as the sole determinant of Texas state law. As such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to review these claims.

Here's the Question Presented by the Petition:

In First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles, this Court recognized that the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause was “self-executing” and that “[s]tatutory recognition was not necessary” for claims for just compensation because they “are grounded in the Constitution itself[.]” 482 U.S. 304, 315 (1987). Since First English, several state courts of last resort have held that the self-executing nature of the Takings Clause requires them to entertain claims directly under the Clause without the need for statutory authorization. Two federal Circuits, the Fifth and the Ninth, disagree and have held that claims for just compensation are only available if they are legislatively authorized. The question presented is:

May a person whose property is taken without compensation seek redress under the self-executing Takings Clause even if the legislature has not affirmatively provided them with a cause of action?

Follow along on the Court's docket here. We sure will be.

Denying Uses (But Allowing Discretionary Ad Hoc Exceptions) Isn't A Recipe For Rational Land Use

If a zoning statute or ordinance sets out the uses permitted in a zone, and the uses not permitted in the zone, and a property owner wants to make a use not permitted in the zone, all she needs to do is apply for a variance, or a Conditional Use Permit, or a nonconforming use permit, or a Special Use Permit, right? After all, isn't the point of these exceptions to bright-line use prohibitions to build in a large degree of flexibility and afford front-line regulators in the right circumstances the discretion to grant a use the legislature prohibited? One size does not fit all, does it? 

That was the issue that closely divided the Hawaii Supreme Court in Hoomoana Foundation v. Land Use Comm'n, No. SCWC-17-181 (Mar. 10, 2023). In a 3-2 opinion, the court concluded that when a use is expressly barred by a zoning statute (and yes, here it is a zoning statute because Hawaii has state-controlled zoning) you cannot ask for a Special Permit to make that use. The only way you can make a use expressly prohibited by the statute is to change the parcel's zoning.

The Case and the Issue

Here's the story. The Foundation wanted to set up an "overnight campground for homeless and commercial campers" (slip op. at 3) on land it leased, which was zoned by the State as Agriculture (B-rated soil, if you are interested):

16. Under Ho'omoana's proposal, the Project would consist of 2 acres, while the remaining adjacent 5.9 acres would be reserved as an agricultural field to be used by the campground occupants for therapy and work. It is envisioned that the [homeless] campers may work in the agricultural field to supplement their rental fees. Homeless campers are expected to pay $10 a night, while the commercial campers would be charged more. The camping fees are anticipated to underwrite the expenses of the campground. Although some of the campers may wish to participate in farming activities on the Property, there is no guarantee that the agricultural field would result in future agricultural productivity nor is there a current requirement placed upon the campers to engage in agricultural pursuits.

17. The 2-acre area of the Project would have up to 26 pods for tents accommodating up to 80 people. Tents are to be provided by the campers. It is intended that both the homeless campers and the commercial campers would be camping alongside each other. In addition to the pods, showers, toilet facilities, fire pits or camp stove areas, a paved parking area, and a charging station for campers are proposed. Homeless campers would be allowed to stay for two to three months or more as approved by the campground manager. It is unclear how long commercial campers would be allowed to use the grounds, but any stay would need to be approved by the manager.

Slip op. at 4.

Problem is, the Agricultural district doesn't seem to allow for overnight camping. The statute says that recreational uses like day camping is permitted, but expressly excludes "overnight camps" as allowed uses:

Within the agricultural district ... all lands ... shall be restricted to the following permitted uses: ... Public and private open area types of recreational uses, including day camps ... but not including ... overnight camps[.]

Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-4.5(a)(6).

But an adjacent statute also allows a request for a Special Use Permit, for "unusual and reasonable uses within agricultural and rural districts other than those for which the district is classified." Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205-6. So what's the deal, can a county Planning Commission or the state Land Use Commission consider a special use permit to allow a use expressly prohibited by the zoning statute?

What Happened

The Foundation thought so, and asked the Maui County Planning Commission for a Special Permit to allow the overnight homeless and commercial campground project as a "unusual and reasonable use." The Foundation also had behind it a Hawaii Supreme Court case, Mahaulepu v. Land Use Comm'n, 71 Haw. 332, 790 P.2d 906 (1990), which held that a use not permitted under section 205-4.5(a)(6) might well be authorized via a special use permit.

But neighbors who object to the project asked the State Land Use Commission for a declaratory ruling that the proposed use of Agricultural land requires a zoning change (known in the parlance of Hawaii's statewide zoning scheme as a "boundary amendment"), and cannot be accomplished ad hoc by a discretionary special use permit.

The LUC agreed with the neighbors, concluding that the overnight camping project could not be approved by way of a special use permit, but that there must be a change in the zoning in order to allow it. By expressly prohibiting "overnight camping," the legislature had, in effect, already made the determination that overnight camping was not an unusual and reasonable use. Thus, no special use permit.

The Foundation appealed to a state trial court under the Administrative Procedures Act. It argued that the special use permit statute doesn't expressly preclude asking for an exception for uses prohibited by the zoning, and moreover, that Mahahulepu case held that doing so is just fine. The trial court bought the Foundation's argument and reversed the Land Use Commission.

Next stop, the Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals, which seemed to go both ways on the issues:

The ICA concluded it was bound by Mahaʻulepu, making the LUC’s decision contradicting Mahaʻulepu palpably erroneous. However, the ICA observed that the specific exclusion of overnight camps should control over the general availability of special permits in keeping with canons of statutory construction and furthering the statutory scheme.

Slip op. at 11.

Majority: The Statute Bars Overnight Camping, And That's That

Final stop, discretionary review by the Hawaii Supreme Court. There, a three-Justice majority (Nakayama, Wilson, Eddins) overruled the Mahahulepu case, and concluded that no, you cannot ask for a special use permit if the use you are seeking is expressly prohibited in the zoning statute:

HRS §§ 205-4.5(a)(6) and 205-6 are clear: the “public and private open area types of recreational uses” of “dragstrips, airports, drive-in theaters, golf courses, golf driving ranges, country clubs, and overnight camps” are not permitted on class A and B agricultural land, and cannot be permitted by special use permit.

Slip op. at 19-20 (footnote omitted).

Relying on statutory text, legislative history, and the canon of statutory construction that the specific controls over the general, the majority concluded that the point of chapter 205 is the protection and preservation of agricultural lands, and allowing a use to be made of agricultural land that is expressly prohibited by the zoning statute would not "promote the effectiveness and objectives of this chapter" as the special use permit statute requires. Slip op. at 18.

Having concluded that a special use permit isn't the way one might ask to establish an overnight campground on agricultural land, the majority held that the only way for the Foundation to get its overnight camping project approved would be to seek a "boundary amendment" (aka zoning change) to change the zoning from Agricultural "to one where recreational overnight camps are permitted." Slip op. at 21.

As for Mahahulepu? Overruled. That decision was the product of "flawed" reasoning (that case held that golf courses, another use expressly prohibited by the statute on Agricultural land, could be approved by way of a special use permit), and "failed to engage with the plain language of [the statute] prohibiting certain uses[.]" Slip op. at 22.

Dissent: The Statute Prohibits "Recreational" Uses, Which This Isn't

Two Justices (Chief Justice Recktenwald and Justice McKenna) saw it differently. Stare decisis cautions against lightly overruling cases that are only 30 years old, "[w]hether or not we agree with its reasoning[.]" Dissent at 2. After all, the legislature has had ample time to supersede Mahahulepu, but it hasn't done so.

More interestingly, the dissenters did not view the proposal for an overnight homeless campground as a "recreational use" included in the statute's express prohibition. Dissent at 9-10 ("An overnight campground for unsheltered persons is not a 'recreational' use."). Thus, at least that part of the project might be subject to approval on Agricultural land, because the statute only bars "recreational uses" (and then lists out examples, including overnight camping. The dissenters also were troubled by the Land Use Commission barring the Foundation from intervening in the declaratory ruling process initiated by the neighbors, "some of whom asserted 'not in my backyard' concerns. Dissent at 14-15 (footnote omitted).

Some Thoughts On Bright Lines and Ad Hoccery

Overall, this one isn't terribly surprising, given the Hawaii Supreme Court's wanting to keep a tight rein on land use issues, and its record of reading exceptions to the court's view of the meaning of statutes and ordinances very narrowly. The court, for example, falls squarely in the "narrow" approach to variances.

And we have to agree more with the majority on this one, but for slightly different reasons. We don't really focus on the statutory interpretation as the majority reasoned (after all, it seems you might read the statute both as the majority and as the dissenters did). Instead, we see this one as a push in the correct direction on a larger-scope issue. That being what we see as a trend in land use regulation to paint with a very broad brush in a statute or ordinance, and then rely on administrative or agency officials to exercise discretion to craft ad hoc exceptions. 

To us, this is a bad trend. The problem with "ban use X by law, but allow a discretionary process that might allow use X" is that it shifts the locus of land use regulation from elected officials and legislative judgments to discretionary administrative determinations made by unelected officials (aka bureaucrats). It also seems to favor old-hand insiders who know how to play the system, legally or otherwise. It might not matter whether you can read the law, but it does matter who you know at the Planning Commission or the Land Use Commission.

Bear with us while we play this out. Let's say the legislature has decided to prohibit certain uses in a certain zone and writes the statute or the ordinance that way. Landowners may not like the restrictions because, well, they are restrictions on their use of their land, but at least having a clear line about what is allowed and what isn't fixes a position to which property owners can react and plan. But let's also say that the legislature also includes in the law that in specific cases, an administrative official has the discretion to effectively overrule the legislature's judgment and permit a use that is expressly prohibited. This leaves what should be legislative judgments up to the discretion of nonlegislative officials. 

What's wrong with that, you ask? After all, as noted at the start of this post, one size does not fit all and shouldn't the law itself account for situations in the grey areas that cannot be accounted for when a legislature regulates property? Don't we want to provide landowners with the chance of making a certain use of their property even though a zoning ordinance or statute prohibits it? Flexibility!

It's All Discretionary, Son

In our view, the "everything is discretionary" approach is a recipe for administrative gamesmanship, and runs counter to the idea that to be a valid exercise of police powers, land use regulation should be comprehensive and part of a bigger plan. Maybe more importantly, this type of scheme not only makes arbitrary decisions more likely, it allows government to create "permit purgatories" where property owners are sent to wither on the vine, especially where the legislatively-adopted regulation bars all uses.

In those cases, instead of having to face the takings music for a regulation that prohibits all economic uses, the government gets off the hook if it can point a court to the mere possibility that it might waive, overlook, or vary the restriction. And once a court hears from the government that there is some theoretical possibility that the use prohibited by the statute or ordinance might be allowed if only the property owner asked the right person in the right way (and that person makes a response that can be deemed "final") the judge's interest switch turns to "off" and the court can confidently kick the case for being unripe. We are referring of course to the "final decision" requirement of Williamson County. Because when there is any discretion in the process, courts are loathe to evaluate takings claims on the merits, on the theory that the government might -- just might! -- exercise its discretion and allow what its own statutes or ordinances plainly and expressly prohibit.

Discretion is Often Designed for Permit Purgatory And Takings Avoidance

Perhaps the most glaring example of how this dynamic enables administrative and judicial gamesmanship is California Public Resources Code § 30010, which has been interpreted as providing both the California Coastal Commission and local governments the complete and total discretion to overrule or ignore any restrictive regulation in the coastal zone, if the CCC or a local government can be convinced by the property owner that to apply the statute or ordinance as written would result in a taking. And believe us, the California Coastal Act and local coastal ordinances are full of restrictions that prohibit any and all economically-beneficial uses. But because section 30010 seems to leave open the possibility that these restrictions may be waived ad hoc (if only the property owner asked the right person the right way), courts never get to the merits. "Just ask for an exemption," they counsel landowners, ignoring protestations that these discretionary approvals are more imaginary than a real possibility, and that assembling a request to exercise discretion can be eye-wateringly expensive.

You don't have to be in the land use game all that long to see the evil genius in this, at least the way the courts read this statute: not only does this put the owner into permit purgatory where government is incentivized to avoid taking a concrete position about what its restrictions allow and what they prohibit, this procedure forces a property owner to present her constitutional takings claims to the very government that she claims is violating her rights, upon pain of a 12(b)(1) or 12(b)(6) dismissal if she files a takings lawsuit before the government responds. Yet the Supreme Court says it does not require exhaustion of administrative remedies in takings cases.

What About Euclid?

But these discretionary purgatories take the foundation of the constitutionality of zoning as expressed in Euclid -- the assumption that land use regulations are constitutional because they are the product of big picture thinking and a comprehensive plan -- and inverts it so that every decision is discretionary and case-by-case. The reality is that these "exceptions" are granted rarely, and the process isn't so much designed to get to a "yes" or "no" on what uses might be allowed on a particular parcel, but are often there more as a "takings avoidance" tool like section 30010, where property owners are forced into an open-ended maze and the government does everything it can to strenuously avoid making any decision. That way, the owner remains stuck in the discretionary maze, never to receive an answer, until the owner throws in the towel, after bleeding out financially or spiritually.

This is rational land use planning?

It isn't, but most federal courts have accepted it as the way the land regulation game is played. So kudos Hawaii Supreme Court, for holding the legislature to what it said in the statute, and not allowing unelected members of a county planning commission or the state Land Use Commission decide that in this case, the statute is meaningless.

Hoomoana Foundation v. Land Use Comm'n, No. SCWC-17-0000181 (Haw. Mar. 10, 2023)

One Guess What The Second Circuit Did With A Takings Challenge To Rent Control

Let's say you know nothing else about an appeal except it is being decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the case is a constitutional challenge to rent control. What's your best guess about the outcome (the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim)?

When the Second Circuit issued its summary order in just such a case last week -- a challenge to the "Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019" -- we decided to undertake a little unscientific poll to see whether others out in the Twitterverse predicted as we did.

Looks like so. Yes, the sampling size was small, and the respondents were only those who voluntarily offered their thoughts. But 95% accurately predicted that the property owners would lose, as the Second Circuit indeed held in an appellate court's version of "laughing heartily" at an appellant's arguments: an unpublished summary order.

We could spend the rest of this post going through all of the reasons why the Second Circuit didn't find a scintilla of reversal in the property owners' arguments. But the Order is so short, you might as well read it yourself.

Short story: facial claim? Nope, no physical taking because you fool landlords let tenants in your properties. No facial reg take either, because "different landlords have greatly varying expectations." Order at 4. Rather than serve as an apt illustration of why the "expectations" part of the Penn Central test focuses on an irrelevant inquiry, the Second Circuit effectively concludes that reg takings claims can never be raised as facial claims. 

Same outcome for the as-applied claims: no plausible allegation of a physical taking because there's still the possibility of getting tenants out, and owners are not prohibited from exit the rent-controlled market by getting out of the rental market; the law merely "restricts a landlord's ability to profit by converting a rent stabilized unit to a market-rate unit[.]" Order at 6. And, for good measure, these claims are not ripe because the owners didn't plead that they tried to get anyone out. As for the as-applied regulatory takings claim, the claim is not ripe because the complaint does not allege that the owners tried to take advantage of any of the non-futile procedures to obtain a hardship exemption. And even if ripe, the owners lose "on the merits." (Remember this is an appeal from at 12(b)(6) dismissal, so what "the merits" has to do with anything is beyond us.)

So what might the 95% response indicate? People have very good predictive powers? Our colleagues are as cynical and jaded as we are? Constitutional challenges to rent control are so lacking in merit and plead-worthiness that courts rightly laugh them out of court? The Second Circuit is predictable but in other circuits you might get a more balanced view?

Or maybe -- just maybe -- something else is at play here, and, like a lot of other courts have done before it, the Second Circuit isn't about to upset the apple cart and do anything to undermine what started off, like a lot of these things do, as an "emergency" measure now fossilized into an untouchable entitlement (but an entitlement that is not paid for by the taxpayers, but by private property owners)? In these cases, the lower courts aren't likely to do doodly-squat, and rent control cases will be pushed up to the Supreme Court until that Court does something more than repeatedly decline to review the issue.  

Summary Order, 335-7 LLC v. City of New York, No. 21-823 (2d Cir. Mar. 1, 2023)

Property Owner's SCOTUS Merits Brief: "Under no circumstances can government have an unbounded ability to confiscate entire properties of any size for even the most minimal tax debts."

Here's the merits brief, filed yesterday in the above-depicted Court by our law firm colleagues, headed by Counsel of Record Christina Martin in Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we've been following closely. This is the one, where, as recounted in the petition:

Hennepin County confiscated 93-year-old Geraldine Tyler’s former home as payment for approximately $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. The County sold the home for $40,000, and, consistent with a Minnesota forfeiture statute, kept all proceeds, including the $25,000 that exceeded Tyler’s debt as a windfall for the public. In all states, municipalities may take real property and sell it to collect payment for property tax debts. Most states allow the government to keep only as much as it is owed; any surplus proceeds after collecting the debt belong to the former owner. But in Minnesota and a dozen other states, local governments take absolute title, extinguishing the owner’s equity in exchange only for cancelling a smaller tax debt, code enforcement fine, or debt to government agencies.

Because this is one of ours, we won't go into it in detail, and leave it to you to read and review. The Questions Presented:

1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause?

2. Whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt plus, interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment?

We shall continue to follow along with the case and the to-be-filed amicus and merits briefs (or you may follow the Court's docket here). 

This case is the third of our firm's which the Court has granted on property issues this Term (Sackett and Wilkins being the other two).

Brief for Petitioner, Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166 (U.S. Feb. 27, 2023)

New Article: "Toward Principled Background Principles in Takings Law" (Strahilevitz & Hansen)

Check this out, a new article co-authored by a federal judge's law clerk and lawprof Lior Strahilevitz (Chicago). With the title, "Toward Principled Background Principles in Takings Law" are we going to read it? You bet. (Unlike a lot of new scholarship that we post here, we read this one immediately.)

Here's the Abstract:

Blunders made by lawyers, judges, and scholars have caused the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid to be deeply misunderstood. In Cedar Point, the Court re-wrote takings law by treating temporary and part-time entries onto private property as per se takings. Prior to Cedar Point these sorts of government-authorized physical entries would have been evaluated under a balancing framework that almost invariably enabled the government to prevail. As it happens, there were two well-established rules of black letter law that California’s lawyers and amici mistakenly failed to invoke in defending the Cedar Point union organizer access regulation. First, a physical takings claim accrues when a regulation authorizing third parties to enter private property is promulgated, not when the third party actually enters the land. Second, only the party that owned the land at the time the physical taking cause of action accrued can prevail. Under these doctrines, Cedar Point Nursery’s lawsuit was filed decades too late. By the wrong plaintiff. California’s oversights were probably outcome determinative.

Moving beyond Monday-morning quarterbacking, we argue that the statute of limitations arguments available to governments in future cases help provide the essential limiting principles that went unmentioned in Cedar Point. In the aftermath of Cedar Point prominent scholars denounced the opinion as a vehicle for gutting antidiscrimination law, labor law, environmental law, rent control, and other parts of the regulatory state. Our analysis reveals that these concerns are likely exaggerated because defenders of those long-standing limits on the right to exclude can invoke the statute of limitations arguments that California’s lawyers failed to raise. On the other hand, new restrictions on owners’ rights to exclude are vulnerable to legal challenge. Properly understood, contemporary takings law grandfathers in many longstanding limits on the right to exclude while constraining governments that wish to tackle collective action problems by restricting property rights in new ways. Moreover, statutes of limitations and related doctrines can provide courts with something that has been elusive since the Supreme Court’s 1992 takings decision in Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council: a principled and coherent account of what restrictions on owners’ rights are impervious to takings claims because they qualify as background principles of state property law.

Read it at SSRN.

[Before we go on, Disclosure 1: my law firm represented the property owner in Cedar Point Nursery, so yes, I have a dog in the hunt.]

What do you think of the article's premise and conclusion that a regulation alleged to allow a physical invasion must be brought when the regulation is adopted, and not when property is actually invaded?

Government lawyers need not and should not repeat the mistake that California’s lawyers made, a goof that evidently went unnoticed by all three dissenting justices, all thirteen amici, and every scholar who has written about Cedar Point. By correcting Cedar Point’s litigation strategy blunder, governments may avoid having to compensate landlords who want to refuse to rent to members of a protected class, landlords whose ability to evict is constrained by rent control laws, employers who wish to fire workers involved in unionization efforts, and business owners who want to bill governments for the inconvenience of having to endure entry by health and safety inspectors. Most of these claims brought by property owners should fail if defended by competent government counsel who can learn from California’s error.

Id. at 5 (footnote omitted).

In other words, the allegedly unconstitutional act is the enactment of the regulation, and not also the failure to provide compensation when an invitee subsequently exercises the rights granted by the regulation to enter the plaintiff's property against the owner's wishes.

And what of the article's other premise, that regulations allowing physical invasions and occupations of property over time become "background principles of the State's law of property and nuisance" and disappear upon conveyance of the property?

Understandably, many observers were unnerved by Chief Justice Roberts’ decision to brush aside the notion that the California regulation – just seven years younger than the Fair Housing Act – was a background principle of state property law, unnerved many observers. If the 1975 California statute and regulation do not count by 2021 as background principles that inhere in title why shouldn’t the 1968 Fair Housing Act suffer the same fate? The response to Cedar Point from the least alarmed property scholars fell back on the idea that the Court would nonetheless treat the Fair Housing Act as a background principle. But no one has a good theory – other than a realist reading of the justices’ relative hostility to the goals of labor law – for why something magical happened between 1968 and 1975. After Cedar Point it is quite challenging to conclude that there are any principles at all underlying the Supreme Court’s conception of background principles. Our goals in this article include articulating coherent principles that are grounded in existing law and consistent with what the Court decided in Cedar Point.

Id. at 17 (footnotes omitted). 

Some preliminary impressions:

Are all physical invasion challenges facial claims? The article's premise seems to eviscerate the longstanding distinction in constitutional law generally -- and takings law specifically -- between a facial challenge and an as-applied challenge. The window opens on a facial challenge on behalf of everyone when a regulation is adopted, but we thought it was settled that individual property owners had to wait -- upon pain of being tossed out on ripeness grounds --  for the challenged regulation to actually be applied to their facts and circumstances. But the article does not mention the facial vs as-applied distinction.

Standing before incurring a concrete injury? The argument also seems a variation of the Federal Circuit's rationale in Campbell v. United States, 932 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2019), where the court held "[i]n the case of a regulatory taking, however, the taking may occur before the effect of the regulatory action is felt and the actual damage to the property interest is entirely determinable." Disclosure 2: we thought the Federal Circuit's reasoning in that case was faulty (that a property owner has an obligation to sue even before she is actually injured seems very strange), and petitioned for certiorari (denied). But it does seem like a weird rule, and very much at odds with injury-in-fact and Article III standing requirements.

Whither Kirby Forest? The rule also seems at odds with Kirby Forest Indus. v. United States, 467 U.S. 1 (1984), where the Court upheld all sorts of government actions that muck around with an owner's property rights prior to an actual judgment and tender of compensation in eminent domain cases. No, the Court concluded, the "taking" takes place in straight takings when there's been an adjudication of compensation and a tender of actual payment. And all those things which happened before that interfere with the owner's use -- like instituting an eminent domain action, filing a lis pendens and clouding title, drying up the market for the property, and similar -- do not interfere sufficiently with property interests because "petitioner was free to make whatever use it pleased of its property." Id. at 15-16. The California provision seems similar: until the union organizers actually entered Cedar Point property under color of the statute, the owner could exclude whom it wanted.

Too early and too late: You just know that if property owners had challenged the California statute as a taking upon enactment, but before anyone had actually attempted to enter under the authority of the statute, that the claim would not have been that they filed too late, but rather too early. Property owners are used to these type of inconsistent arguments and being whipsawed between being accused of filing too early, or too late (or, in many cases, both too early and too late at the same time). We don't think that the line the courts are going to enforce between ripeness and staleness is as clear as the authors make it out to be.

Get ready for more takings claims, federal courts. Unless the article is arguing for abandoning the remaining takings ripeness requirement (something we're down for, but so far the courts are not), we're not sure that a rule that will force prudent property owners to sue upon adoption of new regulations is one that the courts will enthusiastically embrace (even if they should).

Zombie takings, or zombie statutes? The article describes Cedar Point as a "zombie takings claim" (p. 33) because it challenged a statute originally adopted decades ago. It argues that after about 40 years, regulation ossifies into a background principle, immune from challenge. Even though we'd use the "zombie" label to describe the California statute and others like it that are there on the books but are pretty obscure, let's go with the zombie takings label. That brings up an intriguing tradeoff: would we surrender Cedar Point and the ability to challenge 40 year old regulations in return for eliminating the ripeness hurdle and opening up courts to immediate challenges of newly-adopted regulations as we think the piece is advocating for? Hmmmmm... we gotta think about that one.

Cringe. No matter what, we think that calling the Cedar Point outcome the result of "blunders" by lawyers, judges, and scholars (p. 1), the government's strategy a "goof" (p. 5) and "bad lawyering" (p. 48), its lawyers "bone-headed" (id. at 49 & n.314), and accusing government counsel of committing "a colossal strategic blunder" (id. at 2), and saying that the government's lawyers in Cedar Point and Lucas committed "legal malpractice" (id.), is unnecessary and uncharitable in the extreme. We get that the authors don't care for the outcome in Cedar Point and wish their "Monday-morning quarterbacking" strategy (their words not ours, see p.1) would have been raised and tested. But in our view, these type of accusations should not be thrown about lightly, especially by those who didn't enter the amici arena themselves, and by those who don't appear to have been there, done that because their collective time actually practicing law and making strategic litigation decisions in real time in real cases appears to be, let's say, very limited. We hope there can be even vehement disagreement about the issues without slinging accusations of malfeasance, incompetence, and especially malpractice -- claims the practicing bar takes very, very seriously. We respectfully urge the authors and the law journal editors to reconsider these characterizations prior to print publication. 

We're going to meditate on the article and its arguments more. But whatever you may think of the authors' analysis and conclusions, this piece is well worth reading.

Join Us On Wed March 8 at 4:30pm For 2023 Distinguished Gifford Lecture In Real Property - Prof Thomas Mitchell On "Heirs' Property & the Uniform Partition of Heirs' Property Act: Challenges, Solutions, & Historic Reform"

If you are in Honolulu, please join us on Wednesday, March 8, 2023, 4:30-5:30 p.m. at the University of Hawaii Law School for Professor Thomas Mitchell on "Heirs’ Property and the Uniform Partition of Heirs Property Act: Challenges, Solutions, and Historic Reform."

Our U.H. Land Use class is attending to learn more about "heirs' property" (described as "the biggest problem you've never heard of"), and so should you. Yes, Hawaii has adopted the Uniform Partition of Heirs' Property Act and we have followed this issue for some time, but if you didn't know about this, now is your chance to catch up.

Here are the details from the U.H. newsletter:

Carlsmith Ball presents the 2023 Distinguished Gifford Lecturer in Real Property, Thomas W. Mitchell. Mitchell is a professor at Boston College Law School, where he holds the Robert F. Drinan, S.J. Endowed Chair and serves as the Director of the Initiative on Land, Housing & Property Rights. He is a national expert on property issues facing disadvantaged families and communities and has published leading scholarly works addressing these matters.

In 2020, Professor Mitchell was named one of 21 recipients of the MacArthur Fellowship in recognition of the substantial impact his professional work has had in assisting disadvantaged farmers and property owners, people who are disproportionately but not exclusively African American and other people of color. He is the only lawyer in his MacArthur Fellowship class. Please join us for this Distinguished Gifford Lecture; a light reception is to follow from 5:30 - 6:30 p.m.

Come, join us for this compelling session.

IRWA's Summary Of Major Eminent Domain Cases & Legislation (June-Dec 2022)

The International Right of Way Association's Real Estate Law Committee produces twice-a-year reports "which contain summaries of eminent domain decisions and legislation within the United States."

And what is really nice is that they make the report available.

Here's the latest.

We're posting it here because we're one of the co-authors. Hat tip to our co-authors Brad Kuhn, Jillian Friess Leivas, and Ajay Gajaria.

The report is short, and doesn't contain a lot of fluff. Just what you wanted.

Video: "Are Zoning Laws the Cause of Hawaii's Housing Crisis?" With Nolan Gray

As we wrote up here, national zoning and planning expert Nolan Gray joined our U. Hawaii Land Use class (and the public) last week for a talk about whether zoning is an impediment to affordable housing in Hawaii.

Thank you to Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for recording the talk, as well as making Mr. Gray's appearance in our classroom possible. See Grassroot's summary of his presentation here.

If you'd prefer to just listen, try this.

A National Zoning Expert Pays A Visit To The L580 Land Use Class At U. Hawaii

The session was recorded.
Here's the video and audio.

Earlier this week, planner M. Nolan Gray, author of the new book, "Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It" (Island Press 2022) joined our Land Use class at the University of Hawaii Law School to talk about zoning and housing.

The title of his talk was "Are zoning laws the cause of Hawaii's housing crisis?" The subject matter is important, and the public was invited to join us. As you can see, there was a lot of interest in this critical topic and turnout was excellent. 

Thank you to the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii for their sponsorship of the event, and for generously getting Mr. Gray to Honolulu for his in-person appearance. It was also nice to have refreshments following class, and a chance to "talk story" (as we say) with our speaker, the students, and our guests.

Grassroot recorded the session on video, and we shall post a link to it once it is published and available. If you could not join us for his talk, be sure to watch and listen to the recording. Some very compelling stuff.

The public was also invited.
(We let them know they arrived at the right place.)


All set up and ready for our guest speaker.
Recording posted here. 

What is Zoning? A good question (the impression is that "zoning"
means all regulation of land uses). Not quite. Generally speaking, the term 
only covers regulation of use, density, and height. Getting the terms correct
is important. Mr. Gray does not advocate for tossing all regulation,
only zoning. He advocates for a more planning-centric
approach. Read his book for the details.

The heart of the matter: how and why overly restrictive zoning
(see above) inevitably restricts the supply of housing by focusing
mostly on single-family residential. Leave zoning the way it is,
and you are effectively planning for an affordability crisis.

A good, engaged audience.

Mahalo, Nolan, for coming all this way. 

We allocated plenty of time for questions from the audience.

Cases And Links From Today's Land Use Institute Session: "The Use of Eminent Domain for Redevelopment & Economic Development Projects"

Here are the opinions that we spoke about this afternoon at the Land Use Institute on "The Use of Eminent Domain for Redevelopment & Economic Development Projects."

• Redevelopment: You Can't Just Say "Redevelopment" - Take Now, Decide Later Isn't A Public Use
• Due Process: Before Taking Property, Condemnor Must Provide Notice Reasonably Calculated To Put The Owner On Actual Notice
• Scope of delegation: A Hospital Parking Lot Isn't An Authorized Reason To Take
• Necessity: No Necessity: Landowner Met Burden - Condemnor Did Not Consider Other Sites
  
• After the taking: First Circuit: "[T]he Fifth Amendment precludes the impairment or discharge of prepetition claims for just compensation in Title III bankruptcy."

Thanks for joining in.

Seattle's Hazard Pay For Food Delivery Gig Workers Might Be A Penn Central Taking

"But we had to eat."

So begins the Washington Supreme Court's opinion in Washington Food Industry Ass'n v. City of Seattle, No. 99771-3 (Feb. 9, 2023), wherein the court held that a takings challenge to Seattle's ordinance requiring Co-19 combat pay for food delivery workers may proceed. 

There's a lot in the opinion about the crisis and the early days of the response. And about the various claims brought by the WFIA challenging the city's ordinance, including a statutory claim under Washington law (this is a prohibited tax or fee on groceries), equal protection, takings, contracts clause, section 1983, a "police power" claim, and a privileges and immunities claim.

The opinion is long (39 pages, plus concurring opinions and dissents, adding up to 67 pages), so here's your scorecard:

I. The chapter 82.84 RCW claim is dismissed; we affirm.
II. The equal protection claim is dismissed; we reverse.
III. The privileges and immunities claim is dismissed; we reverse.
IV. The takings clause claim is not dismissed; we affirm.
V. The contracts clause claim is not dismissed; we affirm.
VI. The 42 U.S.C. § 1983 damages claim is not dismissed; we affirm.
VII. The police powers claim is not dismissed; we affirm.

Slip op. at 3-4 (footnote omitted).

The plaintiffs assert a Penn Central regulatory takings claim. The city sought dismissal of the complaint, but as noted above, the trial court declined to dismiss the takings claim.

The Supreme Court affirmed. Importantly, the opinion first notes that the takings inquiry doesn't challenge the police power validity of the ordinance. "A regulation that is otherwise a valid exercise of police power may go 'too far' in its impact on a property owner as to constitute a taking, requiring compensation." Slip op. at 27-28 (footnote omitted - but read that foonote, number 10 on page 28, since we think it's a pretty good summary of the relationship between the police power and the compensation requirement:

The problem of an excessive regulation may implicate either the question of whether it exceeds the scope of police powers or whether it amounts to a taking, requiring just compensation. See Orion Corp. v. State, 109 Wn.2d 621, 648-49, 747 P.2d 1062 (1987), abrogated on other grounds by Chong Yim v. City of Seattle, 194 Wn.2d 682, 451 P.3d 694 (2019) (Chong Yim II). Though the doctrines have, at times, been blurred, see, e.g., id. at 645-48, the analyses—and, moreover, the remedies—are distinct. The remedy for an excessive police power regulation is invalidation, whereas the remedy for a taking is just compensation. Id. at 649; Chong Yim I, 194 Wn.2d at 660. The takings clause “‘is designed not to limit the governmental interference with property rights per se, but rather to secure compensation in the event of otherwise proper interference amounting to a taking.’” Chevron, 544 U.S. at 537 (quoting First Eng. Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles, 482 U.S. 304, 315, 107 S. Ct. 2378, 96 L. Ed. 2d 250 (1987)).

Slip op. at 28 n.10.

The opinion first affirmed that the plaintiffs possess a property interest, here, Instacart's contracts with independent contractors who shop for other people and then deliver the groceries (the above-mentioned "gig workers"). The plaintiffs asserted the ordinance has taken these contracts "for the private benefit of the food delivery network workers receiving premium pay." Slip op. at 29. This might be intangible property, but these rights, "including valid contracts, are protected by the takings clause." Id.

Turning to whether the plaintiffs have pleaded a Penn Central claim, the opinion noted the "ad hoc, factual" nature of the inquiry, and concluded the "takings claims should not be dismissed. Instacart may be able to prove a set of circumstances that demonstrates the ordinance interferes with its economic interests to a degree that amounts to a taking under the Penn Central test." Slip op. at 32. Noting that "the economic impact, extent of the interference with investment-backed expectations, and character of the regulation are highly factual inquiries[,]" the court held that without factual development, "it is impossible to ascertain the economic impact of the ordinance on Instacart's business model[.]" Slip op. at 33.

That seems about right to us. As we've noted here many times before, whatever you think of the Penn Central test, the Court has labeled it the "default" regulatory takings standard, and reaffirmed that it is a highly factual inquiry. See, e.g., "Penn Central May Be A 'Fuzzy' Test, But What's A Court Doing Weighing The Factors?" Which to us means that these cases should not get tossed out on the pleadings (which many of them are) and if the plaintiff is doing even a modicum of work should survive summary judgment. Yet the courts continue to act as gatekeepers and prevent most of these claims from getting past the pleadings stage.

Is it really that hard to allege a regulatory taking? We don't think so, nor does the Washington Supreme Court.

Washington Food Industry Ass'n v. City of Seattle, No. 99771-3 (Wn. Feb. 9, 2023) (en banc)

Ice Ice Baby: A Report From The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, 2023, Austin

We were eagerly anticipating 40th American Law Institute-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference. The 2022 Conference in Scottsdale was one of the first meetings where everyone was back in-person (and was a smashing success), but that conference was early in the game so not everyone could or would attend. But in the past year most of us got back to some semblance of "normal," and the turnout promised to be good.

We had record registrations: with over 300 attendees, faculty, and staff signed up, things were shaping up.

Plus, we were headed to Austin, Texas. The last time we held the Conference there in 2016, we loved it so much it has been in-demand for a return visit. And this year is the debut Conference for some new planning co-chairs for both the main tracks as well as the "Condemnation 101" tracks, so the buzz for the 2023 Austin Conference was building.

But then the weather reminded us that Mother Nature is often the boss. 

Very Icy Austin on Wednesday (Conference Eve).

On Tuesday, one day before the Conference was to get underway, the 2023 Central Texas Ice Storm blew in and things were gonna get (as they say) "challenging."

Austin Airport effectively shut down with few flights in or out. Planes and cancellations stacked up nationwide. And even for those nearby, slick icy roads, and seemingly everything was closed, from gas stations to hotels to restaurants. Widespread power outages. 

Were we ready with Plan B if people couldn't get on-site? Read on.

Unless you are already here or are driving,
you ain't getting to Austin via AUS any time soon, pard.

Even flying from sunny California was a problem.

Ticket agent: Austin flight cancelled. How about flying to Houston and then driving?

Me: Sure, that'll work. Just get me to Texas and I'll figure it out from there.

Improvise, adapt, overcome: planes, trains, and automobiles (and car rentals, and long-distance rideshares, and four-layovers-from-Boise flights). Jacksonville to Austin via Chicago and Nashville.

Although those of us who made it to Austin were receiving widespread reports of people delayed and rerouted, we had only a handful who said they would not be pressing forward to get here. 

When this is what greets you when you arrive
at your conference site...uh oh.

And yes, Austin was cold and icy. Most things shuttered and widespread loss of power. But the Conference venue was up and running, and throughout the day on Wednesday, faculty, staff, and attendees were showing up. Trickling in, but showing up or on the way.

When this is what you see at the United Airlines
luggage counter, you ask yourself:
Can I make my presentation in a t-shirt and sweats? (Yes!)

We had confidence, and were prepared
for everyone to get to Austin.

So the aforementioned Plan B went into effect. Agenda items shuffled from tomorrow to today because the speaker is here, now. One speaker in the room, one speaker remote. Our audience is full of experts ... say, Billy can you pinch-hit on this panel? Sure. One speaker remoting in from his (unexpected) hotel room in Phoenix and presenting, before he went to the airport in the afternoon to continue on to Austin.

And so forth. Our long-time ALI-CLE Program Attorney, Amy Weinberg (who was delayed out of Philadelphia) was working furiously behind the scenes doing a lot of juggling, updating, texting and calling, and making alternative arrangements. And the tech team from ALI-CLE was preparing for overload if needed.

Plan A: continue to set the room up, assuming everyone is here or on the
way, and we'll have most or all of our people in the room.

Our Planning Chairs were ready, even if not
all of us were actually there (yet).

Plan B: the ALI-CLE technical crew was prepared to livestream
and record the Conference if the weather made travel
to Austin impossible or infeasible.

The tech command center.

Before we go on, a big thank you to our generous sponsors.
Without your support, this Conference would not be as
good as it is, year after year.

We're underway, with a pretty good crowd.

Thursday morning, 9:00 a.m., and we're looking not too bad. A fair number of folks have pressed forward despite the weather and travel disruptions and are in the room. More report they are not tapping out, and are pressing onwards.

We have more viewers remote than we originally anticipated, but the tech is holding up.

Over the next couple of days, our lawyers, judges, legal scholars, appraisers, law students, right-of-way agents, relocation experts, property owners, and other related professionals made their way to Austin.

The fact that folks who were experiencing some rather dramatic travel difficulties and delays (ask Jack about his late night Uber from Houston airport to Austin, or how our west coasters got re-routed all over creation), didn't quit but were determined to get to Austin told us something about why this Conference has been so successful over the decades.

It's more than great programming from the nation's experts. The Conference is also an essential venue to get acquainted with new colleagues and welcome them to the Dirt Law Bar, reconnect with long-time friends, and have a bit of fun together.

Most of the Conference attendees eventually made it, and very few (reasonably) threw in the towel and turned around for home. This was the 40th edition of the Conference, and we really know why it is one of the most-established and successful conferences in the ALI-CLE stable of programs. This year's experience really drove home why we come, and why our attendees and faculty are so dedicated and committed, despite the sacrifices we make to attend or to present. 

Hybrid: Pacific Legal Foundation's John Groen
remoting in while en-route via Phoenix, and
Baylor lawprof Jessica Asbridge on
"Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners
Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the
Takings and Just Compensation Clauses."


The "Condemnation 101" track was wildly popular
both with new members of the Eminent Domain Bar,
as well as old hands. Standing room only throughout the day.

We also had reports from the field that the remote viewing
was going well. Here's how we looked in the
mountains of North Carolina.

Let's not forget the substance of the Conference.
Lots of practical learning. Here's Hawaii's Mark Murakami
and Virginia's Steve Clarke on "Avoiding the Real Jeopardy:  
Structuring Eminent Domain Settlements."
And no, two-time Jeopardy! champion Steve did not
give answers in the form of a question.

Weather throughout Wednesday and Thursday was icy and nasty,
but towards the end of Thursday seemed to be clearing up.

Consequently, the view from the podium looked better and better
with more showing up and more reporting they were nearly there.

The programming at the Conference is traditionally
a mix of practical subjects and the more theoretical.
Here's one of the highlight latter programs,
Alan Ackerman (Michigan), Matthew Ackerman (also Michigan),
and Steve Davis (Missouri) on "What Does the Supreme Court
Mean When it Says Just Compensation is “Self-Executing?"

There's an ethics program, naturally, for those of us in jurisdictions
with mandatory CLE requirements. But we try and not do "typical"
(i.e., boring) ethics programs. Here's Sarah Kellner (Colorado) and
Shane Rayman (Ontario, CN) on "Ethics: Building Your Practice
by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Professionals."

An example of our practice-oriented programming: Tony DellaPelle
(New Jersey), Bernadette Duran-Brown (California), 
and Andrew Lines (Illinois) on "Preparing Your Expert
Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings:
Tools and Tips For Trial Lawyers." 

Andrew actually pretended he was far, far away for his "deposition"
when he was in fact one floor up from the Conference room.
Way to go all-in.

Thanks to our generous sponsors, we were able to avoid Austin's
icy roads and have our Mickelthwait barbecue
brought in for lunch. Was it well-received? See for yourself. Line
was through the lobby and nearly out the front door.

Thank you to Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock
for speaking on "Developing Property Right Issues in Texas,
Questions and Answers with Justice Jimmy Blacklock"
(interviewed by Justin Hodge (Texas)

It was not an echo-chamber either. Here, in a hotly-debated
session, Jeff Redfern (Virginia), Steve Silva (Nevada), and
Lawprof Emilio Longoria (St Mary's Law, Texas)
debate "When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking:
Police Power Takings."

Jeff, Steve, and Prof Longoria's session got everyone's blood pumping.

It wasn't all serious, and we had a bit of fun.
Like this after-hours live edition of the Eminent Domain & Right of Way
Clubhouse with Beth Smith (Wisconsin), Patrick McAllister (Indiana)
and some dude who was having a post-CLE session beer.

Some of our faculty are more formal and like to speak
standing at the lectern. Here, Pacific Legal Foundation's Jon Houghton
(New Jersey) and Ben Stormes (Montana) on
"Avoiding Pitfalls When Trying a Penn Central Case:
Lessons From the Takings Trenches."

Others are less formal, and speak while sitting
(and wildly gesticulating to make sure you are paying attention).
Kristen Renfro (California), and some guy on
"Your Regulatory Takings Case is in Federal Court – Now What?"

By Friday morning, the Austin weather was looking up. Really up.
And we nearly had everyone in the room.
By hook or by crook, most everyone was there.

By Friday were were pretty much back to normal.
Nearly all faculty and all attendees in the room.
And thus we turned it over to our Saturday morning stalwarts,
starting with Jim Burling, here speaking about "The Many Theories of
Property - Do They Matter in Court?" (and Pufendorf)

No one wanted to miss Michael Berger's "Regulatory Takings Update"
on Saturday morning either.

When you can fill this many seats at a CLE conference on a
Saturday morning after two full days of programming,
you know your speakers are the
right ones (thank you Jim and Michael).

After Jim and Michael did their thing, we held our "National Forum,"
a moderated "open-mic" session where Conference attendees
take to the podium and speak about their case or issue,
or crowdsource a question. Here, Pacific Legal
Foundation's Kady Valois, speaking about
our firm's latest takings cert grant.

We were happy to announce that the 41st ALI-CLE Eminent Domain &
Land Valuation Litigation Conference will be held February 1-3, 2024,
at the JW Marriott in New Orleans.
Save the date!

Ivy Cadle (Georgia - Go Dawgs!) is already planning his trip to
#EminentDomain 2024 in New Orleans.
See you there, Ivy.

With the programming wrapped up, it was time for farewells
and thank yous. Here, four of our law students from William and Mary Law,
who took the time out of their schedules to make their way to
Austin for some real-world learning and networking.
Well done, new colleagues!

Even after the proceedings closed, there was more work to be done.
Here, the ALI-CLE Tech Team breaks it down, after successfully
guiding us through the past four days. They are a large part of the
reason why this Conference works so well (plus, they make the
speakers look really good on camera).

To those who joined us - in-person or on-line, thank you. This conference reminded us of why this program is so successful, and why we all return year-after-year.

To those of you who didn't (or couldn't) join us, here's what you missed. You need to remedy that, and come join us next year in New Orleans...

We'll see you in New Orleans for
#EminentDomain2024!
(Want to keep the conversation going in the
interim? Join the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain Conference
page on LinkedIn.)

CA2, Pellucidly:* You Let 'Em In, Property Owners, So New York Can Tell You To Keep 'Em (Part I)

Here's the latest in a case we've been following since its inception.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the Eastern District of New York's 12(b)(6) dismissal of a complaint alleging that New York (state)'s sweeping amendments to its Rent Stabilization (rent control) statute effected physical and regulatory takings.

First, this can't be a surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to how courts treat rent control. Putting aside for a moment the legal theories and the various challenges, rent control has become so ossified -- such a political third-rail and sacred cow -- that courts are very reluctant to do anything to upset the system, and will approve most any ratcheting-up of the restrictions. Any challenger, whatever the logic of their legal theory, has to recognize that they start off in a very deep hole.

That said, let's take a look at the Second Circuit's opinion because this case is, by all accounts, headed to the Supreme Court (and always has been aimed in that direction).  

Physical Occupation?

The plaintiffs, owners of apartments subject to the amended rent control statute, asserted the law effected facial and as-applied takings. The first claim was for a physical occupation. The statute deprived them of the right to exclude, they argued,  because they have to house tenants at below-market rates. The panel opinion didn't beat around the bush, but got right to the heart of the reasons why it affirmed the dismissal - the owners have no right to exclude, relying on Yee v. City of Escondido because you let the tenants in:

However, where—as here—property owners voluntarily invite third parties to use their properties, regulations of those properties are “readily distinguishable” from those that compel invasions of properties closed to the public. Cedar Point, 141 S. Ct. at 2077. As the Supreme Court made pellucid in Yee v. City of Escondido, when “a landowner decides to rent his land to tenants” the States “have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails.” 503 U.S. 519, 528–29; see also Loretto, 458 U.S. at 440 (“This Court has consistently affirmed that States have broad power to regulate housing conditions in general and the landlord-tenant relationship in particular without paying compensation for all economic injuries that such regulation entails.”); Home Building & Loan Ass’n v. Blaisdell, 290 U.S. 398 (1934); Edgar A. Levy Leasing Co. v. Siegel, 258 U.S. 242 (1922). The numerous cases that affirm the validity of rent control statutes are the necessary result of this long line of consistent authority. See, e.g., Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 (1944); Block v. Hirsh, 256 U.S. 135 (1921).

Slip op. at 7.

We've never quite wrapped our head around this rationale (assuming that Yee says that pellucidly, which we don't think it does at all). What is the difference between an owner saying "keep out" and barring the door and having the law force the door open, versus the law restraining an owner from saying to someone who is no longer invited to "get out?" Yeah, the owners here voluntarily invited tenants to occupy their properties, but occupancy was subject to whatever terms the owners and the tenants agreed to.

But the court was having none of that. You property owners willingly put your units into the rental market -- oops, sorry, the "regulated housing market," slip op. at 9 -- so this is on you for not simply keeping your gates closed. Shame on owners for offering your properties for rent!

To begin, no plaintiff alleges that the RSL forces them to place their properties into the regulated housing market, and it is well-settled that once an owner “decides to rent his land to tenants, the government . . . may require the landowner to accept tenants he does not like.” Yee, 503 U.S. at 526–28. See also Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 259–60 (1964).

Slip op. at 9.

Next, the court concluded that the statute doesn't deprive the owners permanently of the right to exclude, "[b]ecause, as pled, landlords may yet succeed in evicting current tenants, we cannot say that the RSL “compel[s] a landlord over objection to rent his property or to refrain in perpetuity from terminating a tenancy.” Yee, 503 U.S. at 528." Slip op. at 9.

Ripeness (Exhaustion)

Same story with the regulatory takings claim and pleading Penn Central. Before whacking the claim for a failure to plead, however, the court noted the claim was not ripe because the owners have not sought an exemption from the statute's effects under the "hardship" provision. Slip op. at 12. "[T]he as-applied challengers have not sought exemptions. Instead, they speculate that the hardship provisions offer economic relief 'in theory' but practically 'result in few applications . . . being granted.' Speculation of this sort is insufficient under Pakdel." Slip op. at 13.

Yes, such "hardship exemptions" or "variances" are seemingly built into every land regulation scheme out there, and are increasingly becoming the tail that wags the dog: they rarely if ever get granted (and when they do, they are the product of behind-the-scenes decisionmaking that virtually overrule the legislatively-adopted regulation, and operate mostly as a ripeness pressure valve allowing government to avoid having to face the takings music that is the natural consequence of the blanket regulatory ban or restriction).

But who knows, the State just might grant some relief, right Second Circuit?

Penn Central

Back to the Penn Central claim. Slip op. at 13 ("That said, even if the as-applied challengers’ regulatory takings claims were ripe, these claims would nevertheless fail on the merits."). The court seems to analyze the merits of the claims, rather than just stick to whether the Penn Central factors were adequately pleaded. For example, check out this sleight-of-word: "Furthermore, the as-applied challengers have not plausibly alleged that the economic impact factor tilts in their favor." Slip op. at 15.

But isn't all that is required is an allegation that the regulations have had an economic impact on the owners (with it being up to the jury or fact-finder to determine whether this impact, when measured against the other factors, "goes too far" and looks like it is having an effect similar to an eminent domain seizure? Here, the plaintiffs alleged a decrease in value between 20 and 40 percent, and that seems like it should have been enough. But here we have the court determining as a matter of law that this can never be enough, which to us is an usurpation of the right to have a jury make this determination.

Next, the investment-backed expectations factor (which, in itself, invites the kind of bizarre analysis the court engaged in, focusing on whether the property owners here could and should have predicted future restrictions). One answer might be that of course, having their properties in New York, they should have expected to get nailed. And strangely, that is just what the court concluded:

We agree with the district court and hold that any investor could reasonably expect limits on the use of rental properties, such as those as provided by the RSL.

Slip op. at 17. Go ahead, read the rest of pages 17 and 18, where the court bootstraps the very existence of the RSL to conclude that owners should just know that more is coming. You frogs in the slowly boiling water: it's your own damn fault for not getting out of the pot. 

The opinion ends on a low note, the inevitable butchering of Penn Central's character inquiry. The RSL is a valid police power regulation, the court concludes, and therefore the character factor is in the government's favor. That analysis properly belongs in the following section (pages 21-23) where the court concludes that the rent control statute is a valid exercise of police power.

More on the opinion:

• Federal Appeals Court Rejects Rent Control Challenge, Says Government Has Wide Powers To Regulate Land Use (Reason)
• NYC Rent Stabilization Rules Beat Challenges by Landlords (Bloomberg Law)

Stay tuned there will be more.

------------------------------------
*We know the rule in legal writing is never to use "clear" or "clearly," but if you substitute "pellucid," you are just making it worse, not better.

74 Pinehurst LLC v. New York, No. 21-467(L) (2d Cir. Feb 6, 2023)

We're Remote, So It's Easy To Join Us For The 36th Annual Land Use Institute

Land users: come join us online for the 36th Annual Land Use Institute. Yes, the venerable program is back again, with the usual line up of dirt law experts covering all you need to know and bringing you up to speed on the latest. Here's the description of the program:

This Annual Land Use Institute program is designed for attorneys, professional planners, and government officials involved in land use planning, zoning, permitting, property development, conservation and environmental protection, and related litigation. It not only addresses and analyzes the state-of-the-art efforts by government to manage land use and development, but also presents the key issues faced by property owners and developers in obtaining necessary governmental approvals.

This outstanding program features:

• Preeminent faculty of practitioners and academics who provide nationwide perspective without losing sight of state-specific issues.
• Critical review and analysis of the most important new cases;
• Practice-oriented discussion of basics and “hot” topics;
• Guidance on routine and complex procedural issues; and
• Substantial high-quality and well-researched course materials.

Topic and speaker details in the brochure. A very modest registration (law students are free!).

Find out more here. And come join us. We'll be speaking next week Tuesday (Feb. 14, 2023) on "The Use of Eminent Domain for Redevelopment & Economic Development Projects."

LAND USE INSTITUTE - 36th Annual Land Use Conference Program

CA4: Being Blocked From Accessing Your Beach House For 45 Days Isn't A Physical Taking (Or Any Kind Of Taking)

You remember, don't you? In the early days of the Co-19 epidemic, government and public health authorities were scrambling to do something ... sometimes anything! ... to respond.

Dare County, North Carolina might have been one of those local governments that went maybe just a bit too far in the precaution vs effectiveness departments: it banned nonresident property owners from entering the county (and apparently didn't ban anyone else from coming and going, only outsiders).

Dare County announced the restrictions on March 16 and implemented them over three phases. Phase one, which took effect immediately, declared a state of emergency and prohibited mass gatherings. Phase two, which took effect one day later, prohibited non-resident visitors from entering the county. Phase three, which took effect four days after the restrictions were announced, prohibited non-resident property owners from entering the county. In effect, Dare County told non-resident property owners: “If you want to quarantine at your beach house, get there by March 20.” This gave non-resident property owners four days to travel to the county.

Seems a bit over-the-top and not really a measure that had much effect, especially in retrospect. 

But no matter, we know that courts are generally very hesitant to seriously entertain challenges to these type of police power actions as arbitrary or capricious, and won't do much if anything to say "hang on, this doesn't seem like an approach that's really going to work, or even do much."

But there are other ways to challenge these, such as state law, Contracts Clause, Equal Protection, or maybe takings, right? As we explained in an article on emergency takings last year, ("Evaluating Emergency Takings: Flattening the Economic Curve," 29 Wm & Mary Bill of Rights J. 1145 (2021)), takings claims are not a sure-fire winner (even where the cost-spreading rationale of takings is accounted for). 

The U.S. Court of Appeals' recent opinion in Blackburn v. Dare County, No. 20-2056 (Jan. 25, 2023), confirms. There, the court held that Dare County's extreme reaction to Co-19, which prohibited the plaintiffs from "reach[ing] their beach house for forty-five days[,]" was not any kind of taking. Slip op. at 3.

The court first rejected the physical takings claim. The stay-out order "did not physically appropriate anything from them." Slip op. at 7. The County didn't authorize government agents or third parties to come onto the plaintiffs' property. The court rejected the argument that the County keeping an owner from accessing his or her own property is a physical appropriation. "This, they say, makes the order a physical appropriation, because the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that an appropriation occurs when the government eliminates a property owner’s right to exclude. But temporarily excluding an owner from their own property differs from eliminating the owner’s right to exclude." Id.

Next, the court made short work of the Lucas wipeout claim:

But Lucas’s per se rule does not apply here. Accepting the allegations in the complaint as true, Dare County’s order did not deprive the Blackburns’ property of all economic value. The restriction was enacted under the County’s State of Emergency declaration and so would only be operative while that state of emergency persisted. And it lasted only forty-five days. This “temporary prohibition” could not have rendered the Blackburns’ property valueless. See Tahoe-Sierra, 535 U.S. at 332. Moreover, the Blackburns could have lived in their house so long as they arrived before the ban took effect. And even during the forty-five days that the ban lasted, they were still able to rent their property to someone within the County or certain adjoining counties. So the order was not a per se taking under the Lucas framework.

Slip op. at 8.

Finally, the court did not address the merits of the Penn Central claim, but affirmed the dismissal of that theory for failure to plead it correctly. The complaint did not allege facts which show a "substantial" diminution of value caused by the restriction. See slip op. at 9. All the complaint alleged was that the plaintiffs "suffered damage" and lost the "fair market rental value and value of use of said property by governmental regulations for 45 days." Id. The court held this is a legal conclusion. We're not sure what the court suggests the plaintiffs could have alleged to make it more clear. The before-and-after? A specific amount of rent allegedly lost? Use the magic word "substantial?" To us, this seems like a too-technical and crabbed reading of the pleading requirements.

On the "expectations" Penn Central factor, the court seemed to be evaluating it on the merits when it concluded that "the non-resident property order did not deny the Blackburns the use of their vacation home. It simply requied them to be at their home by March 20, 2020, if they wanted to use it personally. And the Blackburns remained free to rent the house to those within the county, or to sell it." Slip op. at 10-11.

And finally, "[t]he third Penn Central factor favors Dare County." Slip op. at 11. The court's analysis starts off with this intriguing note: "This factor requires courts to examine 'the character' of the use restriction. Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 124. Exactly what this factor refers to is, admittedly, a little fuzzy." Id. The court settled on this requiring an inquiry into whether the regulation results in the "functional equivalent" of a classic taking. Slip op. at 12.

Applying this principle suggests that the order is not a taking. Based on the allegations in the Blackburns’ complaint, the order is not “functionally equivalent” to a government appropriation of private property. See Clayland Farms, 987 F.3d at 355. The Blackburns controlled their home during the entire time the order was in effect, and could have personally used it had they arrived in Dare County by March 20, 2020. Cf. Horne, 576 U.S. at 361–62 (holding that a physical appropriation occurred when a regulation physically transferred raisins from farmers to the government).

Nor is the order “functionally equivalent” to an ouster. See Clayland Farms, 978 F.3d at 355. The Blackburns were not dispossessed of their vacation home. And they were never forced to leave Dare County. In fact, just the opposite. Despite promulgating the order on March 16 and implementing the non-resident visitor ban a day later, Dare County delayed implementing this order until March 20 to give homeowners like the Blackburns a chance to travel to the County. This is a far cry from an ouster. See Ouster, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019) (“The wrongful dispossession or exclusion of someone (esp. a cotenant) from property.”).

Slip op. at 12-13.

Dismissal affirmed.

Blackburn v. Dare County, No. 20-2056 (4th Cir. Jan. 25, 2023)

Hey Honolulu, RSVP To Join Us: Nolan Gray, "Are zoning laws the cause of Hawaii's housing crisis?" Feb 15 @5:30, U.H. Law School

Here's your chance to spend some time with the author of one of the hottest land use and public policy books out there, Nolan Gray.

RSVP now (admission free, but space is limited) to join our Land Use class when we welcome Mr. Gray to respond to the question in the title of this post. Details:

Date: Wednesday, February 15, 2023

Time: 5:30pm - 7:00 pm, Hawaii Time

Location: University of Hawaii Law School (2515 Dole Street, Honolulu), Classroom #3.

Cost: Free, courtesy of Grassroot Institute of Hawaii

RSVP: You must register here to reserve your place in the room.

Parking: modest fee, available at the adjacent UH parking structure.

As we noted when we featured his book "Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It" (Island Press 2022) at the top of our dirt lawyer holiday gift guide recently, his work is an accessible summary of what zoning is and what it isn't and isn't simply a polemic, but a thoughtful laying out of why the author (a former planner for New York City) believes that zoning's time is up. The book also offers solutions for what might replace zoning (Houston, we're looking at you).

From the registration site:

Housing prices in Hawaii are through the roof. Demand outpaces supply, and many local families are saying “Aloha” to Hawaii simply because they cannot afford to live here.

So what can state and county lawmakers do to address this crisis?

Nolan Gray, a former city planner in New York City who now leads a “Yes In My Backyard” advocacy group in California, thinks a good first step would be to abolish zoning laws. In February, he will talk in depth about that provocative proposal at two events sponsored by the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii.

Gray's presentation will be on Wednesday, Feb. 15, at the University of Hawaii at Manoa William S. Richardson School of Law, Classroom 3, from 5:30 to 7 p.m. Admission is free and paid parking is available in the law school lot or the main UH parking structure.

Keli‘i Akina, Grassroot Institute president and CEO, will moderate the event, including a Q&A session.

Gray, who also is a Ph.D. candidate in urban planning at the University of California, Los Angeles, wrote about zoning codes and housing shortages in his new book, “Arbitrary Lines: How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It.”

He said zoning codes go beyond general city planning, and that by micromanaging real estate usage and density have served to limit housing supply and make America’s metropolitan areas unaffordable for most residents. In addition, he said, zoning laws have contributed to greater urban sprawl and pollution.

Seating is limited, so please register early. For more information, contact Sean Mitsui at 808-864-1776 or [email protected]

Come, join us and open your mind to his intriguing proposals.

An Ordinance Isn't A Taking Because It's A Valid Exercise Of Police Power?: What The Heck Is Going On In The Texas Court Of Appeals (First District)?

If your first reaction to the Texas Court of Appeals (First District)'s decision in City of Houston v. The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd., No. 01-21-00369-DV (Jan. 12, 2023) is scratching your head, then please come join us in bewilderment.

After all, the court held that a takings claim failed because the city is immune from inverse condemnation. Say what? We thought that the self-executing nature of the just compensation requirement of the U.S. Constitution (and the Texas Constitution) means that claims of sovereign immunity don't hold water in inverse cases.

The Commons wants to develop "The Crossing," one of those big master-planned communities. The usual development activities entailed: master plan, subdivision plats, city approvals for infrastructure, and even some actual site work. "By April 2018, The Commons had invested millions of dollars in planning and infrastructure for The Crossing." Slip op. at 2.

But in reaction to Hurricane Harvey, the city adopted an ordinance amending the city's approach to development in floodplains. And "[s]ignificant portions of The Crossing are located within the City's 100-year or 500-year floodplains." Id. The ordinance was based on FEMA maps, which are required to be used as a condition of obtaining flood insurance. The regs changed the way the city was going to regulate development in the predicted 100 and 50 year floodplains. Instead of requiring that residences in the 100-year floodplain build one foot above flood elevation (and having no requirements for the 500-year floodplain), the new ordinance "required that new residential structures
within the 500-year floodplain be built at least two feet above the flood elevation." Slip op. at 6. 

The Commons asserted that applying the new ordinance to its already-underway project "would substantially damage the market value of the property and that the current development plan would be unfeasible." Slip op. at 7. State court inverse condemnation claim (under the Texas Constitution only) followed.

The city responded to the lawsuit by asserting the claims were not ripe because it had not reached a final decision denying the project (the new ordinance contains a variance mechanism), and when the trial court disagreed and held the case ripe, the city appealed and the court of appeals reversed: not ripe.

The Commons then went through the motions it needed to go through to confirm that yes, indeed, the city wasn't going to let The Crossing continue as originally ok'd. There was some of the usual "your application isn't complete" dance, after which The Commons submitted a new plan with a 72% reduction in developable land. "The City granted The Commons' amended plan." Slip op. at 10.

Next up, Round 2 of the lawsuit. Or more accurately, the Second Lawsuit. "The Commons alleged that the City's amended floodplain ordinance 'intentionally and unreasonably restricted The Commons' [] use and enjoyment of its property,'" and took it without compensation (asserting a Lucas-like and a Penn Central-like theory under Texas law). Id. 

The city tried the ripeness gambit again, but its main attack was that the takings claim was "barred by governmental immunity because the 2018 Floodplain Ordinance does not give rise to a takings claim as a matter of law." Slip op. at 11. Jump ahead to page 18 of the slip opinion for the reasons why the Court of Appeals agreed.

The city argued that The Commons could not assert a takings claim because the amended ordinance merely complied with FEMA requirements, and "requiring compliance with local laws consistent with FEMA/NFIP requirements does not constitute a taking." Slip op. at 18. Moreover, the ordinance can't be a taking because it is a police power regulation, "adopted to accomplish legitimate goals, [which] are substantially related to the public's health, safety, or general welfare, and are reasonable." Id.

Hey, we were just "track[ing] the criteria of the NFIP," claimed the city. Id. The court agreed that the U.S. Court of Appeals had already determined that if the government is just following FEMA and NFIP requirements, then, well, it just can't be a taking. See Adolph v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 854 F.2d 732 (5th
Cir. 1988). But when did compliance with other law constitute some kind of safe harbor from the Just Compensation requirement? The parties argued about the applicability of Adolph and the details (see slip op. at 20-22), but to us, the bigger issue is what does compliance have to do with it at all: either the city's regulations go "too far" and affect The Commons' use of its property, or they don't. Does it matter why the city adopted the new floodplain ordinance?

To us, if the city is required to conform to FEMA requirements that means only that the regulation is likely to pass due process and public use muster, and really has no bearing at all on the impact of the regulation on a property owner's rights.

As if the court concluding that Adolph controlled wasn't enough, starting on page 25 the opinion alternatively held that there could not be a taking because -- get this -- the new floodplain ordinance is a valid exercise of the city's police power.

Yes, healthsafetywelfaremorals. But as we noted above (and have noted here many many times), the validity vel non of a regulation has little to do with whether it works a regulatory taking. You'd think that a valid regulatory purpose was the prerequisite to a takings claim not the stop sign. Some courts get it right.

We ask you: go read pages 25-28 of the Texas court's opinion. Sounds a lot like a due process analysis, doesn't it? All about the purpose of the ordinance. How it is reasonably designed to protect the public. How it survives the rational basis test.

Our response (since this is a case from the South, we feel entitled): bless your heart.

In case we're not being clear: the entire regulatory takings doctrine would make no sense if all the government need do to avoid liability is show that the regulations claimed to effect a taking are valid exercises of the police power. Indeed, the takings doctrine pretty much presumes that the taking is the consequence of an otherwise valid exercise of power. To conclude, as the court did, that the regulation can't be a taking because it is a valid exercise of the power to protect the healthsafetywelfaremorals of the public simply gets you into a self-proving rule.

Come on, Texas! We thought you got this stuff better than that.

City of Houston v. The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd., No. 01-21-00369-DV (Tex. Ct. App. Jan. 12, 2023)

(Nearly) Last Call: There's Still Time To Join Us For The 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Feb 1-4, Austin

We really want you there...

One (nearly) last reminder that there's still time to register for your space at the 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, February 1-4, 2023, in Austin. In the past several years, we have sold out due to the conference room capacity and the conference hotel block. But there's still space, although we are nearly full. So register now - don't delay any further! 

Here's the brochure with the complete agenda, schedule, and faculty listing. But to tempt you, here are some of the highlights of the program:

• Everything Old is New Again: Why Today’s Practitioners Need to Understand the Original Meaning of the Takings and Just Compensation Clauses
  
• When the SWAT Team Comes (No) Knocking: Police Power Takings

• Private Utility Takeovers – Lessons From a 67 Day Trial

• "Contraband": How Property Rights Helped Pave the Way for Civil Rights

• Valuation Issues When Billboards and Signs are Condemned

• Setting Client Expectations and Identifying Red Flags

• Preparing Your Expert Witness to Shine in Virtual Proceedings: Tools and Tips for Trial Lawyers

• Developing Property Right Issues in Texas - Questions and Answers from the Bench (with Texas Supreme Court Justice Jimmy Blacklock)

• Eminent Domain and Regulatory Takings Updates: Important Decisions You Need to Know

• Ethics: Building Your Practice by Mentoring the Next Generation of Eminent Domain Lawyers

• the Condemnation 101 program (a one-day course for those new to the practice, or for experienced practitioners wanting a refresher)
• ...and much more!

To register, go here.

Looking forward to seeing everyone in Austin for the 40th edition of the Conference.

Program Brochure, 40th ALI-CLE Eminent Domain & Land Valuation Litigation Conference, Austin, Texas, Feb 1-...

Federal Court: Seattle Facilitating Downtown Takeover Takings Claim Is Going To Trial

Saturday in the park...I think it was the Fourth of July

Here's the latest on a case we've been following, about the blocking off of a neighborhood in Seattle and making it a no-go zone for those whom the takeoverers wanted to keep out.

Yes, the CHOP/CHAZ case is still a thing. [And before we go on a disclosure: our law firm is participating as amicus curiae in the case.]

Business owners in the zone sued the City in federal court, alleging that the government actively aided or facilitated the takeover, or at minimum did nothing to end it. Claims asserted include Due Process, Takings, and state and local law claims. The takings claim was based on two theories: first, that the City facilitated a physical invasion by third parties of plaintiffs' properties; second, that the City action or inaction resulted in a loss of access by plaintiffs and their invitees to their properties in the zone.

We posted the federal court complaint and court's earlier denial of the City's motion to dismiss:

• Complaint: City's Abandonment Of CHOP/CHAZ Neighborhood Is A Taking
• Federal Court: If It's True That Seattle Provided Material Support To CHOP/CHAZ, That Could Be A Taking

In this Order, the court granted the City summary judgment on the due process claims and one of the takings claims, but importantly denied summary judgment on the denial-of-access takings claim. 

The court rejected the temporary physical invasion claim, concluding that the City had neither formally invited, nor authorized, the protesters to enter plaintiffs' properties, and "[u]nlike in Cedar Point and Loretto, the City did not adopt a regulation or ordinance granting protesters a 'formal entitlement' to enter Plaintiffs' properties. Order at 24.

But the court didn't see it the same way with the loss-of-access takings claim. First noting that "[a]n owner's right of access to his or her property is recognized in Washington[,]" which cannot be "eliminated or substantially impaired," Order at 24, the court concluded that "the parties do not dispute that some plaintiffs were able to access their properties during CHOP." Order at 25 (footnote omitted). The declarations submitted by plaintiffs in opposition to the City's summary judgment motion alleged "that access to their properties was significantly diminished or impaired during the CHOP period." Order at 26.

This action does not involve the typical exercise of police power to regulate the flow of traffic in the Capitol Hill neighborhood, such as for routine road maintenance or construction. Further, Plaintiffs have presented evidence that the City’s actions actually interfered with or prevented their access to their properties. Drawing all justifiable inferences from the evidence in Plaintiffs’ favor, the Court concludes that genuine disputes of material fact preclude summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ right of access theory of liability. The Court therefore DENIES the City’s motion as it relates to Plaintiffs’ right of access taking claim. Whether Plaintiffs can present sufficient evidence at trial to support the City’s liability for a taking under these circumstances is a factual issue that cannot be resolved on a motion for summary judgment.

Order at 27.

For your next visit to Seattle

So the beat goes on. We'll bring you updates as they occur.

Hunters Capital, LLC v. City of Seattle, No. C-20-0983 (W.D. Wash. Jan 13, 2023)

Lucky Friday The Thirteenth: SCOTUS Grants New Takings And Excessive Fines Case

Here at inversecondemnation.com, we were all set to call it a week and take a break from posting until Monday.

But SCOTUS had other ideas.

In this Order issued today, it agreed to review Tyler v. Hennepin County, No. 22-166, a case and an issue we've been following closely.

The Questions Presented by the petition:

Hennepin County confiscated 93-year-old Geraldine Tyler’s former home as payment for approximately $15,000 in property taxes, penalties, interest, and costs. The County sold the home for $40,000, and, consistent with a Minnesota forfeiture statute, kept all proceeds, including the $25,000 that exceeded Tyler’s debt as a windfall for the public. In all states, municipalities may take real property and sell it to collect payment for property tax debts. Most states allow the government to keep only as much as it is owed; any surplus proceeds after collecting the debt belong to the former owner. But in Minnesota and a dozen other states, local governments take absolute title, extinguishing the owner’s equity in exchange only for cancelling a smaller tax debt, code enforcement fine, or debt to government agencies.

The questions presented are:

1. Whether taking and selling a home to satisfy a debt to the government, and keeping the surplus value as a windfall, violates the Takings Clause?

2. Whether the forfeiture of property worth far more than needed to satisfy a debt plus, interest, penalties, and costs, is a fine within the meaning of the Eighth Amendment?

Disclosure: our law firm, Pacific Legal Foundation, represents the Petitioner property owner, and our law firm colleague Christina Martin is the lead counsel. Consequently, we won't be putting up much analysis here. But of course we shall continue to follow along (or you may follow the Court's docket here). 

This case is the third of our firm's which the Court has granted on property issues this Term (Sackett and Wilkins being the other two).

CA4: Property Owner Isn't "Vested" So No Takings Property

When we first read the U.S. Court of Appeals' opinion in PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (Jan. 5, 2023), our reaction was one of skepticism. After all, at first blush, the court seemed to have concluded that in order to possess a property right protected by the Takings Clause, the owner needs first to prove it is a "vested" under state law.

That struck us as waaaay wrong. Yes, vesting under state law gets you a separate property interest, but failure to vest under state law does not mean you don't otherwise possess Takings Clause "private property." So what gives, Fourth Circuit?

Well, it turns out that despite us being ready to render a hearty j'accuse at the court, the outcome was a product of the claims made by the property owner (as they often are).

The opinion is short enough that it makes more sense for you to read the facts than for us to summarize them, but the real short story is that the case involves 150 acres of undeveloped land, and the owner asserted it was exempt from a county ordinance that severely regulated and restricted water and sewer connections for new developments. We're vested because we received county approvals back in 2005 in our preliminary subdivision plan, so we're not governed by the ordinance. When the county didn't agree, federal lawsuit followed. The complaint included a takings claim, which asserted the county had taken the vested property right of water and sewer service. The district court dismissed for lack of standing.

The Fourth Circuit agreed with the outcome (dismissal) but for a different reason: failure to state a claim. No property right = no taking. See slip op. at 5 ("We agree with the district court's bottom-line conclusion but get there via a somewhat different route."). When the property is framed as a vested right, then the issue is going to turn on state law; in this case North Carolina's law of vested rights. The Fourth Circuit concluded that under N.C. law, the owner here did not possess a vested right. The money it spent wasn't in reliance on a government permit, and the 2005 subdivision approval was preliminary not final. Interestingly, the opinion did not cite the most prominent recent N.C. decision on vesting.

But no matter. No vesting = no property. No property = no taking.

Just remember this: it's good for your takings claim when you have a vested right; if you have a rock-solid vested right under state law, chances are it is the foundation for a pretty robust takings claim. But lacking a vested right doesn't mean you don't own property. It may not mean you win, but at least you get past the preliminary hurdle that tripped up the owner here.

PEM Entities, LLC v. County of Franklin, No. 21-1317 (4th Cir. Jan. 5, 2023)

Md App: If You Want To Overturn The Amortization Doctrine, Take It Upstairs

You know the "amortization" doctrine: when an existing legal use is declared illegal, the government can avoid a takings claim by slowly phasing out the use, supposedly to allow the owner to recoup investment. The doctrine is established in Maryland by Grant v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 129 A.2d 363 (Md. 1957), where the court held that amortization works if the time and uses allowed are reasonable.

Not all jurisdictions take that approach, however. For example, in Pennsylvania Northwest Distributors, Inc. v. Zoning Hearing Bd., 583 A.2d 1372 (Pa. 1991), the Pennsylvania court held "[a] lawful nonconforming use establishes in the property owner a vested property right which cannot be abrogated or destroyed, unless it is a nuisance, it is abandoned, or it is extinguished by eminent domain."

In In re Mangisteab, No. 2022-93 (Dec. 20, 2022) (unpub.), the Appellate Court of Maryland (fka the Court of Special Appeals, that state's intermediate court of appeals), recognized that the property owners asked to overturn Grant and adopt Pennsylvania's approach, but concluded that this was above the pay grade of lower court judges.

The case involves Baltimore's removal of liquor stores in residential zones as nonconforming uses under the city's zoning ordinance. Liquor stores have been illegal in residential zones since 1971, but have been allowed to continue to operate as long as they didn't cease operation for more than 18 months. But recently, the city said "no more," and gave the liquor stores two (or three) years to wind up. The owners challenged the change as a taking of their vested rights, and expressly asked the courts to abandon the Grant rule. 

Not too surprisingly, the trial court (and now the court of appeals) said no, that's a job for the Maryland Supreme Court:

Owners believe, however, that Grant and its progeny should be overturned. As counsel for appellant acknowledged at oral argument, however, if that were to occur, it must be done by the Supreme Court of Maryland, not this Court. Foster v. State, 247 Md. App. 642, 651 (2020) (“It is not up to this Court . . . to overrule a decision of the [Supreme Court] that is directly on point . . . . The rulings of the [Supreme Court] remain the law of this State . . . unless those decisions are either explained away or overruled by the [Supreme Court] itself.”), cert. denied, 475 Md. 687, 257 A.3d 1156 (2021) (cleaned up). Johns Hopkins Hosp. v. Correia, 174 Md. App. 359, 382 (2007) (“[T]his Court does not have the option of disregarding [Supreme Court] decisions that have not been overruled, no matter how old the precedent may be.”), aff’d, 405 Md. 509 (2008). Accord Livesay v. Baltimore County, 384 Md. 1, 14 (2004) (quoting Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808, 827 (1991)) (Stare decisis “is the preferred course because it promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.”). We will not, therefore, overrule Grant and hold that termination of a nonconforming use after a reasonable amortization is unconstitutional.

Slip op. at 16-17.

So stay tuned, we suspect this isn't over just yet.

In re Mangisteab, No. 2022-93 (Md. App. Ct. Dec. 20, 2022) (unpub.)

No Necessity: Landowner Met Burden - Condemnor Did Not Consider Other Sites

Check this out, a decision upholding a necessity challenge to a taking.

Necessity, you say? What's this? Aren't necessity challenges subject to an even more deferential judicial standard of review than the rational basis test applied to declarations of public use? Didn't the U.S. Supreme Court in Adirondack Ry. Co. v. New York, 176 U.S. 335, 349 (1900) say that "[t]he general rule is that the necessity or expediency of appropriating particular property for public use is not a matter of judicial cognizance but one for the determination of the legislative branch of the government...."? What gives?

In Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov't v. Bendel, No. 22-0432 (Dec. 23, 2022), the local government brought an expropriation action (that's eminent domain or condemnation to you non-Louisiana chappies), seeking to take property to construct four detention pods to improve drainage. The owner objected, challenging the public use and necessity of the taking (the government was taking more property than it needed). The trial court agreed with the owner and dismissed. The Louisiana Court of Appeal affirmed.

How so, you may ask, given the low bar for necessity where the courts for the most part wash their hands of the issue?

This challenge, as you might have guessed, was made under Louisiana law. And there, the standards are a bit more realistic. Although Louisiana law also recognizes that the extent and location of the taking are within the discretion of the condemning agency and its decision is entitled to a presumption the taking satisfies a public need or interest, it also recognizes that if the owner carries its burden of showing the location was selected in bad faith or so capriciously or arbitrarily that the selection "was without an adequate determining principle," then a reviewing court may conclude the condemnor abused that discretion.

That's what happened here. Although the mere availability of alternative sites to place the drainage project "is not, by itself, an indication that the expropriator has acted arbitrarily or capriciously," slip op. at 7, the appeal court reviewed the trial court's findings that looked at things like "alternate route[s], costs, environmental factors, long-range area planning, and safety considerations." Id.

In the end, the court of appeal reviewed the evidence submitted by the parties -- which included testimony by one witness that "he had never seen a case where a property that has never been flooded was converted to purposely make it flood because usually lower elevated property would be used so that so much excavation would not be necessary," slip op. at 16 -- and agreed that the owner carried its burden:

In this case, the testimony and evidence make clear that no alternate routes were considered. The total cost of the project is unknown. Environmental factors and long range area planning were not considered. None of the witnesses testifying on behalf of LCG indicated that safety considerations were made regarding the gas line that runs through the property. Based on all of these factors, we cannot say that the trial court was manifestly erroneous in finding that LCG acted arbitrarily and capriciously.

Slip op. at 19.

Now if only other courts would look at necessity the same way.

Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated Gov't v. Bendel P'ship, No. 22-0432 (La. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 2022)

Fireside Podcasts: Eminent Domain Podcast's Holiday Special 2022, And APA's Talk With Nolan Gray

This week is light for many of you, so instead of the deep and insightful analysis of recent decisions that we're known for (ha), we instead recommend to you two podcasts to warm the chilly nights.

So fire up the hearth, strap on those earbuds, and listen away.

First up, what is quickly becoming a December tradition: Clint Schumacher's Holiday Special, in which he asks past guests for their holiday traditions and memories.

Next, the American Planning Association's talk with Nolan Gray, whose book, "Arbitrary Lines:How Zoning Broke the American City and How to Fix It" is on our Dirt Lawyer Holiday Gift List this year. Find out more by listening in.

CA9: Land Use Is A "Sensitive Area Of Social Policy" So We're Gonna Let A Local Govt Bleed The Property Owner Out

Here's another one from the Ninth Circuit, argued on what one advocate called "land use day at the Ninth Circuit" (except, unlike the other two cases argued that day, the decision in this one gets published). 

In Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (Dec. 8, 2022), the panel upheld the dismissal of a takings case, holding that federal courts should abstain from considering regulatory takings cases in favor of pending state court eminent domain actions, even when the condemnor instituted the state court action in response to the federal takings claim (and even though, unlike the other two cases argued that day, the federal takings claim is ripe).

This one started in federal court, where the property owner asserted the city's rejection of its development application worked a taking. In response, the city ran to state court and filed an eminent domain action to take the owner's fee simple interest in the land (we presume that's the property the city is condemning, because the opinion doesn't specify). Next, the city ran back to federal court with its state court complaint in hand and asked the federal court to exercise Pullman abstention to let the state court condemnation action play out first. The district court agreed ... federal case gone (for now).

Rejecting the owner's argument that abstention here was just a backdoor state-procedures exhaustion requirement -- both of which were rejected by the Supreme Court in Knick and Pakdel -- the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The panel first concluded that there's nothing in either of those cases that make federal takings claims immune from Pullman abstention. Those cases involved ripeness and exhaustion, and didn't say anything that prohibit federal courts from ducking federal civil rights issues. See slip op. at 7 ("As an initial matter, neither Knick nor Pakdel explicitly limit abstention in takings litigation. Neither case even addresses abstention."). Abstention is to avoid "friction" between federal and state courts, and to prevent federal courts from unduly interfering with the delicate balance between the states and the federal courts. Id.

Addressing the owner's argument that Pullman abstention results in a de facto return to the state court exhaustion requirement rejected by Knick, the panel concluded that "[t]he state court can adjudicate the eminent domain action without reaching the regulatory taking issue because eminent domain and regulatory takings suits compensate property owners for different injuries." Slip op. at 9.

Eminent domain compensates property owners for the forced sale of their properties to the government; the property is transferred to the government, and the owner is paid the property’s fair market value as of the date the government made a deposit on the property. Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1263.310. A regulatory taking action, on the other hand, compensates a property owner for “[t]he economic impact of [a] regulation . . . and, particularly, the extent to which the regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations.” See Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 538–39 (2005) (quoting Penn Central Transp. Co v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124 (1978)); Steven J. Eagle, Regulatory Takings § 8-9(a) (2021) (surveying methods of calculating compensation proportional to harm and level of interference).

Id.

In our view, the actual differences between a regulatory takings/inverse claim and an exercise of eminent domain are not those identified by the court, because it isn't so much about different injuries (eminent domain isn't at all about "injury" at all), but more like different property being taken and valued. Here, the owner's regulatory takings claim asserts that by engaging in some otherwise legitimate function (denial of permission to develop), the government has, from the owner's perspective, effectively condemned the right to use the property (the development rights), or even the fee simple interest if this is framed as a Lucas taking, but has not provided just compensation for the interest(s) taken. On the other hand, the owner's argument in the state court eminent domain case isn't that the government action is unconstitutional because it has not provided compensation, but that it has not paid (or offered) enough compensation for whatever interests it is taking. Those differences have nothing to do with the owner's "injury."

And wait, you say, in the eminent domain action, doesn't the property owner have to raise the issues he's raising in the regulatory takings action as part of his defense or as part of the highest and best use of the property? We'd think yes, that the owner has some sort of argument, or defense, or counterclaim that the eminent domain action isn't fully compensating him for the interests actually taken, and either should (or more likely must) raise these issues in the state court. Or would be taking a pretty big risk by not raising the issue. 

But the Ninth Circuit panel saw no downside, and concluded that the owner could somehow reserve the federal claim, even with an England reservation!

The Gearings could defend the eminent domain action without challenging the constitutionality of the City’s enforcement of LUP Section 9.3.5 or other regulations, and simply recover the fair market value of the property as restricted by those regulations.¹ When the eminent domain action concludes, they could then litigate their regulatory taking claim in federal court and recover damages for the economic impact of the regulation and interference with their investment-backed expectations. See Lingle, 544 U.S. at 538–39. The Gearings have not cited, and we are not aware of, any support for their assertion that the constitutionality of the City’s restrictions on their properties must be adjudicated before compensation can be determined for purposes of eminent domain.

----------------------------------

¹ To the extent the Gearings argue that this would result in issue preclusion that would bar their federal claims, they are incorrect, because issue preclusion only applies to issues that were “actually litigated and decided in the prior proceedings.” Snoqualmie Indian Tribe v. Washington, 8 F.4th 853, 864 (9th Cir. 2021) (emphasis added). As noted, the Gearings would not be required to litigate their takings claim in the eminent domain action. Thus, this case is distinct from San Remo Hotel II, in which the property owners were required to litigate their takings claim in state-court proceedings in order for those claims to ripen for federal review. See 545 U.S. at 347.

Slip op. at 9-10.

Having determined that Pullman abstention was not categorically precluded, the panel found it simple to conclude that the doctrine should be invoked here because land use is a "sensitive area of social policy." But if Pakdel and Knick, stand for anything, they to reflect the Supreme Court’s thorough rejection of the longstanding trope that takings claims challenging land use regulations are “local” matters outside the competency of federal judges, and that federal courts need to give local governments a lot of leeway and right-of-first-action when it comes to restricting property owners' uses.

The Court made clear that land use and takings claims are civil rights matters and are to be treated like every other civil rights claim. If federal courts can resolve cases about monkey selfies, nude dancing, creating Valentine’s Day artwork out of naked bodies, and whether pet pigeons are diseased (all examples taken from cases in which a federal court resolved the issues) then it doesn't seem like a straightforward land use question is uniquely sensitive or so inherently local as to be beyond the ken of federal judges expressly tasked by Constitution (amend XIV) and statute (section 1983) with dealing with the issue.

More on the decision here ("Does Pullman Abstention Apply to Federal Takings Claims Post-Knick?") and here ("This Week at the Ninth: Abstention and the Golden Globes").

Will there be more on this one? Stay tuned.

Gearing v. City of Half Moon Bay, No. 21-16688 (9th Cir. Dec. 8, 2022)

Happy Birthday, Regulatory Takings - Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Dec. 11,1922)

This story might be said to have had its roots millions of years ago.

It is about coal, after all. Anthracite coal, to be exact.

But that -- and today's date -- should give you a clue that, as we teased in this post a mere 28 days ago (the Supreme Court worked hard and fast in those days), today, Sunday, December 11, 2022, is the 100th birthday of the U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Dec. 11, 1922).

True, what became known as the "regulatory takings" doctrine did not spring from whole cloth on December 11, 1922, but had been bouncing around in the common law for quite a while (see here and here for example).

But if you want to mark and official birthday for regulatory takings, you could not do better than Pennsylvania Coal (aka Mahon).

The case that launched a thousand academic tenure quests! The case that asks the oh-so-Holmesian question "how far is too far?" (and "too far" into what or from what- the owner's rights, the government's powers?). The case responsible for instructional videos. For law student cheat sheets. For wikis. For beaucoup online PowerPoint slide shows. For flashcards, for heaven's sake. 

A case cited nearly 10,000 times (thanks Westlaw):

And still kicking, despite calls for its overruling, and claims it has been sub silentio abrogated ("Abrogated?" I don't think so):

Eight-to-one, with only Justice Brandeis (predictably) in dissent.

We spent today -- a wet and snowy one -- with a colleague (and now friend) at the actual property that gave rise to the litigation in Pittston, Pennsylvania, visiting the site, talking to the present and former owners of the Mahon home, and learning more about the case, the people involved, the arguments, and the history and process of anthracite coal mining that led to the dispute.

You know the short story as set out in the Supreme Court's opinion. But you may not know the details. So in a series of upcoming posts, we'll bring you some of the more interesting aspects of the case.

Today, as we discussed the decision in what was, a century ago, Harold John Mahon, Esq.'s office (he was a lawyer you know, and along with co-counsel repped himself in the Supreme Court), we imagined that this might have been what he saw when he received the telegraph from Washington, D.C. on December 11, 1922, notifying him that the Court had ruled against him:

Before the day was through, we paid a visit to Mr. Mahon at the nearby cemetery, just to let him know that there are no hard feelings, and that the regulatory takings doctrine his case spawned is alive if not entirely well.

Here, at the Craig-Mahon family plot, he lies in repose with Mrs. Mahon.

Her story takes a most interesting twist (more on that in future posts).

So stay tuned. This post is just a teaser because we just had to post something today, in recognition of the 100th anniversary of the opinion.

But more will come on the Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon story. 

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (Dec. 11, 1922)