The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted for review a takings case from Rhode Island.
The case centers on the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council's denial of permits to fill 18 acres of wetlands and a pond in the town of Westerly. The landowner, Anthony Palazzolo, first sought permission to dredge and fill the marsh and pond in 1962 so that he could build 74 houses. He filed several subsequent applications but did not receive the approval needed to proceed. The state agency found that the development would harm birds and animals that rely on the wetlands. Furthermore, state laws approved in 1965 and 1971 gave state officials more authority to deny such applications.
The landowner filed a lawsuit in 1988 claiming that the state had "taken" his land without just compensation. The Rhode Island Supreme Court ruled that the takings claim was not ripe because Palazzolo never filed an application to develop the subdivision; he sought permits only to fill the wetlands. Moreover, the court ruled, Palazzolo never "sought permission for less ambitious development plans." The court also held that Palazzolo had no inherent development rights when he acquired the property, and could not have reasonably believed he would get permits to fill the wetlands when he acquired the land.
The landowner's attorney, Eric Grant of the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, argued that the case involves three questions: whether a regulatory taking is categorically barred when a regulation predates a landowner's acquisition of the property; whether a landowner must file less ambitious development applications after the denial of the first application to ripen a takings claim; and whether a property value of greater than zero means that permissible uses remain "economically viable."
Rhode Island state attorneys argued that the takings claim is not ripe and that the court has settled other issues raised by the suit.
The case is Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 99-1047. Oral arguments before the high court will probably be conducted in early 2001.
Federal housing officials violated the free speech rights of three Berkeley residents who protested plans for a homeless shelter in their neighborhood, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled.
The court ruled that a Department of Housing and Urban Development officials' eight-month investigation into the activities of project opponents trampled on rights that were clearly protected by the First Amendment. The court held that the five HUD officials (one of whom is now deceased) are...
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has reversed a lower court judgment giving an Indian tribe the right to regulate the use of fee-patented private property within a reservation boundary. The unanimous three-judge panel ruled that an Indian tribe has the authority to regulate land owned by nonmembers only when given specific Congressional approval or when then land use directly affects the tribe's political integrity, economic security, or health and welfare.
The case involved a small timber ha...
The First District Court of Appeal has cleared the way for Oakland Mayor Jerry Brown to participate in redevelopment decisions in neighborhoods where he owns property. In overturning a Fair Political Practices Commission ruling, the court held that Oakland's City Charter provides a loophole in state conflict-of-interest laws by requiring the mayor's participation in redevelopment activities.
Brown championed the state's conflict of interest law, the Political Reform Act of 1974 (Gov. Code ยง81000), whe...
The City of Los Angeles's general plan framework and accompanying environmental impact report have survived most aspects of a legal challenge. The Second District Court of Appeal found the EIR acceptable but rejected the city's findings regarding traffic impacts, remanding the case to the trial court.
The unanimous three-judge appellate panel upheld the EIR's discussion of alternatives, water resources analysis and housing policies. Assistant City Attorney Susan Pfann said city officials we...
The California Supreme Court has voted to review a business tax case from San Diego. However, the state's high court deferred action on Teyssier v. City of San Diego until the court decides a similar case from Los Angeles.
In June, the Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled that San Diego's tax on rental residences was not subject to Proposition 218, the Right to Vote on Taxes Act of 1996 (see CP&DR Legal Digest, August 2000). The city assessed a rental unit business tax on all residential pr...
The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will not reconsider a takings case involving a building moratorium in the Tahoe Basin. However, five Ninth Circuit judges did vote to hear the case of Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc., v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 216, F3d., 764. (9th Cir. 2000), and Judge Alex Kozinski issued a blistering dissent in which he accused the three-judge panel that decided the case of ignoring takings precedent.
"The panel does not like the Supreme Court's Takings Claus...
Claims that Sacramento County violated the California Environmental Quality Act while approving a commercial development have been dismissed by the Third District Court of Appeal because the project opponent did not submit a written request for a hearing within 90 days of filing a lawsuit.
The attorney for opponent Forster-Gill, Inc., argued that a telephone call to the court clerk within the 90-day period was adequate, but the appellate court disagreed, ruling that the law "plainly contemplates a written request that can be, and is, filed with the court."
A state appellate court has upheld the California Coastal Commission's denial of a development permit for a small mixed-use project in Morro Bay.
The court rejected developer Dan Reddell's arguments that the commission violated his due process and equal protection rights, and that its decision was a regulatory taking of property. Instead, the Second District Court of Appeal ruled that substantial evidence supported the commission's finding that Reddell's project was inconsistent with Morro Bay's local coastal plan (LCP).
A state appellate court has thrown out an Inyo County general plan amendment that the county argued was nothing more than a clarification of a longstanding policy.
A unanimous three-judge panel of the Fourth District Court of Appeal, Division Two, concluded that the amendment was more than a mere clarification and that the county should have completed an environmental impact report before approving the amendment.
A City of West Hollywood moratorium on new multi-family housing development has been declared invalid by the Second District Court of Appeal. The court ruled that the city had not made required findings for the moratorium.
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals has set back a plan to develop the country's largest solid waste landfill near Joshua Tree National Park. The court ruled that the environmental analysis for the project was inadequate and that the Bureau of Land Management undervalued land it would provide to the landfill developer.
A state appellate court has struck down a California Environmental Quality Act exemption for an air district rule permitting new power plants to offset emissions by paving roads. The court found that the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District did not have adequate evidence to support its finding that the rule could not have a negative impact on the environment.
