SCOTUSblog provided good previews of this week’s oral arguments, discussed in this blog on Tuesday, and a post-argument recap of the St. Johns Water Management takings case.
This is an important week for land use at the U.S. Supreme Court. On Wednesday the Court will hear arguments in the case of City of Arlington, TX v. Federal Communications Commission, a Federal Telecommunications Act case that was discussed previously in this blog. For the Oyez Project summary of the case go here.
Another case with potentially much broader implications is being argued today. That case is Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management Authority. The Oyez Project summary is here. An article from the Orlando Sentinel can be found here. As a University of Florida law professor aptly stated in the Orlando Sentinel article, the case “doesn’t really reduce itself very well for a newspaper article.” The essential facts: The landowner sought permits to prepare his land for development by filling in wetlands. He was told by the St. Johns River Water Management District that he could build on about 3 acres of the parcel if he left the rest of the property alone and paid around $10,000 to restore some wetlands in a state-owned wildlife preserve nearby. He rejected the second part of that offer and sued St. Johns when it denied his requests for a development permit, arguing that the it had stripped his land of much of its value as a result of the denial. He won in state court and won again when the district took the case to an appeals court. Then, last year, the Florida Supreme Court sided with the water district. (For the lawyers, and non-lawyer land use law fanatics among you, the Florida Supreme Court case can be accessed here).
The U.S. Supreme Court certified the following legal questions:
1. Whether the government can be held liable for a taking when it refuses to issue a land-use permit on the sole basis that the permit applicant did not accede to a permit condition that, if applied, would violate the essential nexus and rough proportionality tests set out in Nollan u. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); and
2. Whether the nexus and proportionality tests set out in Nollan and Dolan apply to a land-use exaction that takes the form of a government demand that a permit applicant dedicate money, services, labor, or any other type of personal property to a public use.
Potentially at stake is the practice of requesting developers to pay for off-site improvements as a condition of development approval. Also raised is the question of whether decisions made during the pre-permit negotiation phase can give rise to takings claims.