Substantive Due Process Protection at the Outer Margins of Municipal Behavior

Realistically, the landowner and developer know that the review of a development project in light of today’s more complex land use, growth, and environmental considerations requires in many cases the ingredient of human judgment in order to provide pragmatic resolution of these issues. There is always a tension between landowners’ and developers’ preferences for certainty on the one hand and on the other hand their need for pragmatic solutions that only the exercise of judgment can provide

Impact Fees: The “Second Generation”

This Article analyzes the evolution of impact fees in a number of states that have had the longest experience with impact fees to determine how more than a decade of legislation and litigation has changed the form and substance of local impact fee ordinances in those states

Advocating Affordable Housing in New Hampshire: The Amicus Curiae Brief of the American Planning Association in Wayne Britton v. Town of Chester

In June 1990, The American Planning Association, a national Washington, D.C. based non-profit association of 27,000 professional planners, elected and appointed planning officials, and citizens interested in improving urban and rural planning filed this amicus curiae brief with the New Hampshire Supreme Court. The case on appeal is Wayne Britton v. Town of Chester, No. 85-E-342 (N.H. Super. Ct. June 27, 1989), brought by a builder/developer and low-income plaintiffs in need of affordable housing in Chester, New Hampshire

Federal Land Use Law and Litigation

Federal Land Use Law and Litigation examines all federal, constitutional, and statutory limitations on local land use controls, discussing relevant constitutional doctrines, cases, regulations and litigation strategies. It comprehensively reviews Supreme Court and lower federal court decisions that address the constitutionality of land use regulations and discusses a broad range of issues. The text examines topics such as: Free Speech limitations on land use controls Redress for constitutional and statutory violations and discussion of associated attorneys fees provisions Liability and immunity of local government and local officials Litigation concerns and strategies Potential liability for zoning, subdivision and growth management controls Due process and equal protection concerns Takings Environmental, Fair Housing and Telecommunications Acts RLUIPA The volume allows fast, easy, and on-point research and includes a table of contents, a detailed index, and a table of cases.https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_books/1055/thumbnail.jp

The Supreme Court\u27s 2012 Takings Case

In this article, the authors discuss the three takings cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term and predict that in St. Johns River Water Management Dist. v. Koontz, 77 So. 3d 1220 (Fla. 2011), cert. granted, 133 S. Ct. 420 (2012), arguably the most important of the cases, the Court will reject the claim that the Nollan/Dolan exactions test should be extended to apply to proposed conditions on development in addition to conditions that have actually been imposed

Federal Land Use Law and Litigation

Federal Land Use Law and Litigation examines all federal, constitutional, and statutory limitations on local land use controls, discussing relevant constitutional doctrines, cases, regulations and litigation strategies. It comprehensively reviews Supreme Court and lower federal court decisions that address the constitutionality of land use regulations and discusses a broad range of issues. The text examines topics such as: Free Speech limitations on land use controls Redress for constitutional and statutory violations and discussion of associated attorneys fees provisions Liability and immunity of local government and local officials Litigation concerns and strategies Potential liability for zoning, subdivision and growth management controls Due process and equal protection concerns Takings Environmental, Fair Housing and Telecommunications Acts RLUIPA The volume allows fast, easy, and on-point research and includes a table of contents, a detailed index, and a table of cases.https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_books/1055/thumbnail.jp

Federal Land Use Law & Litigation

This 2014 edition covers several important recent developments in this field. These include: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Brandt Revocable Trust et al v. United States, which involved the general question of whether the federal government retains a reversionary interest in a railroad’s right-of-way granted under the General Railroad Right–of–Way Act of 1875. The issue had led to a split among the federal circuits. The Court concluded the right-of-way granted to the railroad under the 1875 Act was an easement. Thus, when a railroad abandoned the right-of-way, the underlying land became unburdened of the easement. The Brandt Revocable Trust decision has potential relevance to the Rails-to-Trails Act which authorizes the conversion of abandoned railroad rights-of-way into recreational trails as can be seen from Justice Sotomayor’s dissent which predicted that the decision will lead to lawsuits challenging the conversion of former railbeds to recreational trails. The Court’s grant of cert in Reed v. Town of Gilbert, involving a church’s challenge to sign regulations in Gilbert, Arizona that the church claims disfavor its temporary directional signs based on their content. We note that the decision in Reed will likely resolve a split in the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal as to the correct view of what comprises content-based, as opposed to content-neutral, sign regulations. The Court’s decision in Utility Air Regulatory Group v U.S. EPA to strike down EPA’s efforts to regulate greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted from stationary sources. The Court held that while its 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA decision affirmed EPA’s ability to regulate GHG emissions as “air pollutants,” the decision did not necessarily apply to the specific category of air pollutants regulated by the “Prevention of Significant Deterioration” (PDS) provisions under the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Court found that EPA’s 2010 “Tailoring Rule” providing for a phased implementation of GHG permitting requirements based on source emission levels, was an impermissible interpretation of its authority under the CAA, because it would “bring about an enormous and transformative expansion in EPA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.”https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/fac_books/1029/thumbnail.jp