Rough Proportionality Test

News & Analysis as of

Proportionality, Nexus Don't Matter If It's Not A Taking

Landowners routinely have to give up something in return for a government agency's granting a discretionary permit. Developers are quite familiar with these requirements, as they are consistently compelled to dedicate...more

Koontz: The latest chapter in land use permitting and takings

In a landmark environmental case, the United States Supreme Court expanded the scope of potential governmental liability for takings. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist, 133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013), the Court held that...more

Koontz Expands Paths for Developers to Challenge Permitting Decisions

A recent 5-to-4 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013), broadens property owners’ rights to challenge land use decisions on the grounds of inverse...more

A Jury in an Eminent Domain Action Must Decide if “Reasonable Probability” Exists that Government Will Require Dedication of Land...

A city planned to realign a truck route and offered the landowners compensation that valued the property as undevelopable agricultural land instead of its current zoning of light industrial. The city reasoned that the...more

Judge Or Jury? A Critical Eminent Domain Question Answered

When a public agency seeks to impose a land exaction on a planned development, the analysis of whether the proposed dedication meets the necessary "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests is often cumbersome and...more

In Eminent Domain Proceedings, the Likelihood and Constitutionality of a Dedication is a Jury Determination

When a public agency seeks to impose a land exaction on a planned development, the analysis of whether the proposed dedication meets the necessary "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" tests is often cumbersome and...more

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Latest Attempt to Differentiate a Fair Quid Pro Quo in the Developer’s Permitting Process From an...

The U.S. Supreme Court has issued an important decision in an attempt to add clarity and help government land use planners understand the difference between reasonable requests and unreasonable demands rising to the level of...more

Zoning & Land Use -- July 2013: Supreme Court Strives to Protect Zoning Applicants from Unreasonable Government Demands

Recently the Supreme Court issued a decision that will have a material impact on applicants seeking zoning and land use related permits. In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., 2013 WL 3184628, No. 11-1447 (U.S. June...more

U.S. Supreme Court: Federal Nexus And Proportionality Analysis Applies To Land Use Permitting Fees And To Both Denial And Granting...

A Florida landowner seeking a permit to develop part of a wetlands property offered a conservation easement on the undeveloped portion of the parcel to the local water management district. The district indicated it would not...more

Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Landowner Seeking To Develop Property

On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District rendered a decision that protects the rights of property owners when seeking construction permits to develop their...more

The Supreme Court Gets It Right On Takings - And Wrong - A View from "Inside the Curtilage": The Property Owner's Perspective

In Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Supreme Court cleared up two important, nagging issues with wide applicability and importance to property owners across the country. First, the 5-member majority,...more

US Supreme Court Protects Landowners from "Extortionate" Demands by the Government in Land-Use Permitting Decisions, Including...

In a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Alito, and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy, the US Supreme Court in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District broadened the protections...more

Supreme Court Ruling May Lead to More Landowner Challenges of Land Use Regulations, Fees

The U.S. Supreme Court recently issued a ruling in a long-running land use case holding that “extortionate demands” by the local government entity constituted illegal interference with a property owner/developer’s right to...more

U.S. Supreme Court Expands Property Rights Protections in Koontz

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last week in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District expands the holdings of Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374...more

U.S. Supreme Court Limits Monetary Exactions

In a victory for property owners and developers nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court has just eliminated two main methods used by local governments to evade the Court’s landmark property rights decisions of Nollan v. California...more

A Victory for Property Rights: U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Developers Seeking Permit Approvals

On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down arguably one of the most influential Takings Clause decisions since the Kelo v. City of New London1 ruling in 2005. In a 5-4 decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water...more

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District - No. 11-1447, 570 U.S. __ (2013)

On June 25, 2013, the US Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying the limitations the constitution places on the power of governments to exact concessions from property owners when issuing development permits. It confirmed...more

United States Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Real Property Owner in Federal Constitutional Takings Case

The Supreme Court of the United States published an important land use case on June 25, 2013, which provided a partial victory for a real property owner, based on the denial of a permit by a Florida permitting agency. The...more

The 2013 U.S. Supreme Court Takings Trilogy

It’s the last week of the U.S. Supreme Court’s term, so the big 5-4 decisions are out. Tuesday the big decision was Koontz v. St. Johns River, a takings case. This completes the trilogy of takings cases in front of the...more

The United States Supreme Court Extends Unconstitutional Exactions for Land-Use Permit Applicants

Many real estate industry professionals are familiar with the government's substantial power and discretion in land-use permitting. Land-use applicants on the verge of lucrative development opportunities find themselves in a...more

Supreme Court decision will impact land-development projects nationwide

In a decision that will impact land-development projects nationwide, the U.S. Supreme Court held this week that the government may not condition a land-use permit on mitigation requirements that do not have an essential...more

US Supreme Court Limits Governmental Power to Impose Conditions on New Development

The extent to which governmental authorities may condition land use permits on exactions and concessions from land use permit applicants has received extraordinary attention from the United States Supreme Court in recent...more

U.S. Supreme Court Rules For Property Owner In Important Takings Case

In a 5-4 decision, the U. S. Supreme Court expanded the reach of the requirement that there be a “nexus” and “rough proportionality” between the impacts of a proposed development and governmental conditions imposed on the...more

Denying Land-Use Approval if a Land Owner Will Not Pay for Mitigation Efforts Triggers Heightened Constitutional Scrutiny - U.S....

If a governmental authority denies approval of a land-use permit because an applicant refuses to spend money on a government project, such as a mitigation project, the government must defend its denial under heightened...more

The Problem with the Supreme Court’s Regulatory Takings Jurisprudence? It Doesn’t Require a Taking

The Supreme Court ruled today, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, that a property owner who is denied a land use permit on the ground that he refused to pay money to compensate for the harm to be caused...more

33 Results
|
View per page
Page: of 2