Earlier this week the California Supreme Court issued a major takings decision rejecting a suit by the California Building Industry Association (“CBIA”) seeking invalidation of the City of San Jose’s inclusionary housing ordinance. The unanimous decision In CBIA v. City of San Jose is not only a ringing affirmation of the constitutionality of inclusionary housing policies but also an important explication of the line between “exactions” (subject to unusually strict judicial review) and land use regulation (subject to more traditional, deferential review). The case was brought under both the California and the Federal takings clauses, but the California Court assumed the two clauses should be interpreted congruently in this context. Read the rest of this entry »
Now that the state legislatures have mostly wrapped up for the year, it is worthwhile to comment on two of this year’s oddball state takings measures, one from Florida and the other from Arkansas. Both measures are more interesting for what they don’t do than for what they do. Read the rest of this entry »
Just when you thought the Koontz litigation couldn’t get any worse (see my article, Koontz: the Very Worst Takings Decision Ever?),the Florida Court of Appeals has issued a decision in the Koontz case on remand. The Court split 2 to 1.
To recap, the case arose from the St John’s Water Management District’s denial of a permit to fill wetlands after the plaintiff and the District failed to come to terms on a combination of easement restrictions and off-site mitigation measures that would have allowed the District to issue the requested permit. The Florida Supreme Court, reversing a decision by the Florida Court of Appeals, ruled that the Nollan/Dolan “exactions” standards do not apply to a permit denial when the government has imposed no “exactions.” The U.S. Supreme Court reversed, holding that Nollan/Dolan do apply to a permit denial following a landowner’s refusal to accede to a demand for an exaction.
In this latest ruling in the case, on remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals reasoned that, since the court’s 2009 decision was “entirely consistent” with the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision, and since the Supreme Court’s opinion “does not set forth a new legal construct” for analyzing the issues in the case, it should “reaffirm” its prior decision upholding the finding of a taking and a compensation award without the benefit of further briefing. Given that the Court of Appeals previously awarded “just compensation” for a “taking” of private property, and the Supreme Court subsequently declared that the claim in Koontz was NOT based on a “taking,” the majority’s logic is more than a little suspect. Read on …