Host Kris Halterman will interview Ed Kilduff about the pending lawsuit to restore property rights and uphold the Supreme Courts recent decision that the government cannot require action by a property owner that affects the value of the property and their ability to use it, without a direct nexus between the action being required and its relation to the property.
This week Pacific Legal Foundation filed this petition in the Supreme Court of the United States, asking it to decide whether the government can make shoreline property owners give up part of their land to serve as water quality buffers for the surrounding community. This case,Common Sense Alliance v. San Juan County, deals with a perennial problem that property owners face. Government jurisdictions require permits to develop property, and use that authority as leverage to take property which they would otherwise have to pay for. The Supreme Court has aptly described this as an “out-and-out plan of extortion.“Show Outline Aug. 2013 “Koontz” Supreme Court Decision
PLF Petition to Supreme Court PLF Press Release May 2016
Previously, in limited circumstances where an adjudicative land use permitting decision required a dedication of property to offset impacts on the public from a particular project, reviewing courts would apply the Nollan/Dolan standard to ensure that the requisite property dedication had a reasonable nexus to the public impact of the proposed project and was roughly proportional to the size of the impact of the project. If these two prongs were not satisfied, the dedication was found to be a taking of private property requiring payment of just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. In Koontz, the Supreme Court found that the Nollan/Dolan standard applies beyond the takings context to any situation in which the government’s demand of a permit applicant is “excessive.”