Land-Use Regulation after Koontz: Will We 'Rue' the Court's Decision?

Land-use regulation has become critical in the twenty-first century, and the need for flexibility in land-use decisions is more pressing now than ever before. Not only are local governments trying to remediate the reckless land-use planning of the past sixty years, they are facing a host of growing issues from climate change, resource conservation, and historic preservation to affordable housing, traffic congestion, and overburdened and aging infrastructure. While attempting to contend with these social, environmental, and economic issues, local governments face increasing pressure from large-scale developers. In many areas, particularly at the exurban fringe of metropolitan areas, population growth is rapidly outpacing housing availability. City councils, planning commissions, and other governmental bodies often find themselves at the bargaining table with prospective developers, and the allure of taxes, job growth, and economic development can give developers significant leverage in these negotiations. To respond, local governments have adopted a wide range of land-use planning tools they can use to direct development in a manner that is sensitive to the individualized needs of their communities. Governments have succeeded in tailoring development with the imposition of development fees (also called impact fees), special assessments, and land-use exactions — conditions that a government places on a land-use permit to help mitigate the negative impacts of the proposed development. Recognizing the need for local governments to address land-use issues in an individualized manner, courts have taken a step back from interfering too heavily with this localized decision-making. As early as 1926, the United States Supreme Court, in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., upheld zoning ordinances as a valid exercise of a city’s police power and set a standard of deference to the localized land-use decisions of municipalities. Over the past century, courts have largely abided this deferential view, refusing to substitute their own judgment for that of the legislature. Recently, however, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Supreme Court severely circumscribed the authority of local governments to address these important land-use issues, and took a decidedly more active role in assessing the legitimacy of local land-use regulation. This Comment proposes that Koontz was wrongly decided based on both legal precedent and public policy, and that this decision may have serious ramifications for local governments in affecting flexible land-use planning decisions that address important social and environmental ills. Part I summarizes the procedural history from the state trial court through the Florida Supreme Court and then details the majority and dissenting opinions of the United States Supreme Court. Part II presents a history of takings jurisprudence in the realm of land-use exactions, focusing on the Nollan/Dolan test and subsequent interpretations and applications of the test in both the federal and state courts. Part III analyzes the Supreme Court’s reasoning and discusses how the Court erred in light of the prevailing precedent and public policy. Finally, Part IV assesses the potential impacts to local land-use planning.