Search

The article discusess various court cases on property exactions and impact fees in the U.S. Topics include Bowman v. California Coastal Commission case on coastal development permit; County of El Paso v. Navar case on certifications that utility services meet minimum state standards for land sale or lease; and Golf Course Assoc, LLC v. New Castle County case on rejection of plan for development of single-family homes and former Delaware National golf course.

The article offers information on the developments in exactions and impact fees for land or funding facilities in the U.S. Topics discussed include public infrastructure aid by the local government; U.S. Supreme Court case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard which deals with doctrine of unconstitutional conditions; and developments in the areas of exactions and impact fee jurisprudence.

The article looks at the laws related to exactions use to develop land, to aid local government in providing public infrastructure in the U.S. Topics discussed include the U.S Supreme Court decision in the "Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District" case, the U.S. Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937; and laws related to private property under Fifth Amendment jurisprudence in the country.

The article focuses on the efforts made by the U.S Supreme Court to inhibit government extortion in land exaction cases. Topics discussed include case Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District that dealt with monetary exactions, the application of rules established in case Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard to legislative or adjudicative exactions, and the history of the takings clause. It also mentions the film "The Godfather" focused on extortion.

This Article focuses on problems in implementing the U.S. Supreme Court's expansion in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District of its doctrine of unconstitutional conditions pertaining to land development approvals. As earlier developed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, the doctrine only applied to unrelated or disproportional exactions of interests in real property. The doctrine was expanded in Koontz to include denials of development approval after landowner refusal to accede to unreasonable exaction demands, and also to exactions of money as well as real property interests. Drawing an analogy to Yale Kamisar's disparate treatment of criminal defendants in the "mansion" of the judicial system and the "gatehouse" of the police station, this Article discusses difficulties in implementing Koontz. It examines the difficulty of enforcing prohibitions on unreasonable coercion in informal bargaining between land development approval applicants and local regulators. The Article concludes by discussing specific procedural and substantive problems, and proposes some partial solutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on public dedication requirements on private lands in the U.S. Topics include the exaction of impact fees, takings jurisprudence by the U.S. government, and the public dedication of an interest in real property. Information is provided on state court decision making and state regulatory procedure.

The article presents information on community benefits agreements (CBAs), contractual agreements used to solve the exactions problem related to real estate development projects. It focuses on several issues regarding CBAs and discusses potential benefits as well as risks posed by CBAs. It also discusses the State Action Doctrine and whether it should be used to bring CBAs.

The article discusses several court cases related to impact fees in the U.S. It states that in the Home Builders Association of Central Arizona v. City of Goodyear, the association argued that the city violated state law by determining the impact fee without considering future revenue but the court supported the city as impact fee requires only to have relation to the actual burden due to development.

The article focuses on the developments in exactions and impact fees that deals commonly litigated issues in the U.S. It is along the uncommon circumstance of a local government encouraging private individuals to grab the private property of another. According to the article, the law of exactions and impact fees continues to provide important litigation in jurisdictions. It is stated that many of the 2008 significant decisions show that a valid system of exaction and impact fees should be based upon and consistent with state law.

The article offers information on the concerns of the law of exactions and impact fees on the limits of local governmental authority in the U.S. According to the author, the recurrent issue are whether the governmental action is legislative or adjudicative, whether to apply the Nollan/Dolan "rough proportionality" standard to the exaction or fee and whether the exaction or fee is tied to capital expenditures for the infrastructure needed to serve a particular development. He emphasized that the law exactions and impact fees continues to generate significant litigation in jurisdictions nationwide.

The article discusses conflicts involving the Takings Clause jurisprudence in the U.S. and the use of the Supreme Court's Dolan test in assessing legislative exactions. The author believes that legislative and adjudicative distinction is less important to the Takings Clause, with its emphasis on just compensation. Current takings jurisprudence has caused a rift in the lower courts. Lower courts have expressed deference for legislative decisions, in the context of both physical exactions and impact fees. The implications of the Dolan Test on legislative takings are discussed. Since the Takings Clause does not draw distinction between branches of government, the courts should not provide a method for governments to avoid the constitutionally mandated result of their land use policies.

Discusses cases that U.S. courts decided in 2004 that have a significant effect on development exactions. Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; Dolan v. City of Tigard; Overview of significant cases on impact fees and dedications in 2003.

Determines the extent to which the dedication or payment of a fee precedent to land development may be imposed by the U.S. government on landowners and developers. Highlights of the Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard Supreme Court cases; Arguments concerning impact fees; Application of the Nollan/Dolan test to impact fees.

The article focuses on the court case, Mayor of Ocean Springs versus Homebuilders Association of Mississippi on 2006. The case started when the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of Ocean Springs, Mississippi adopted impact ordinances to support police power measure in the area. However, homebuilders and development companies including the Homebuilders Association of Mississippi, claimed that the impact fees were actually taxes, which was beyond the authority of the city. Meanwhile, the court founded that the fee was a tax, noting the city's counteraction for several arguments, particularly the Hurricane Katrina aftermath. However, the court pointed out that the assessment of the fees is on the discretion of the state citizens, through constitutional amendment or legislative action.