We’ve been closely watching the Sheetz v. County of El Dorado case, which has worked its way up through the California trial and appellate courts all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. For a quick refresher, the case concerns whether legislatively enacted development impact fees (such as fees for building permits, etc.) are subject to the rough proportionality and nexus requirements (i.e., can a generally enacted permit fee be the subject of an unconstitutional taking). …
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court decided one of two pending cases dealing with inclusionary housing, holding that when a public agency requires a developer to convey units at below market rates and make substantial cash payments, the developer may challenge these conditions under the California Mitigation Fee Act. (Sterling Park v. City of Palo Alto (Oct. 17, 2013) 2013 Cal. Lexis 8112.) The California Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the scope of the Mitigation Fee Act, confirming that inclusionary in-lieu fees are subject to the essential nexus and rough ...
Eminent Domain Report is a one-stop resource for everything new and noteworthy in eminent domain. We cover all aspects of eminent domain, including condemnation, inverse condemnation and regulatory takings. We also keep track of current cases, project announcements, budget issues, legislative reform efforts and report on all major eminent domain conferences and seminars in the United States.
Stay Connected
RSS Feed
Categories
- Administration
- Appraisal
- California
- CLIMATE CHANGE
- CONGRESS
- Construction
- Court Decisions
- EPA
- Events
- Goodwill
- GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
- Inverse Condemnation & Regulatory Takings
- Lawsuit
- New Legislation
- Possession
- Projects
- Public Agency Law
- Publications
- Redevelopment
- Regulatory Reform and Proposed Rules
- Right to Take
- Right-of-Way
- Seminars
- Speaking Engagements and Presentations
- trial
- Valuation
- Videos
- Water