Source: https://www.inversecondemnation.com/inversecondemnation/2007/01/index.html
Timestamp: 2019-10-17 06:27:19
Document Index: 302343308

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 205', '§ 46', '§ 101', '§ 1', '§ 91', '§ 91']

inversecondemnation.com: January 2007 posts
▪ "High Wash of the Waves?"
KITV reports that "Waves Wash Debris Onto North Shore Roadways" during winter high surf on Oahu's famed North Shore.
What does this mean when the boundary between public property and private land on the shoreline is the upper reaches of the wash of the waves, as evidenced by the vegetation or the debris line? Would a single rogue wave that washes far up past the usual high wash move the property line?
This question may seem far-fetched, but under the present standard for measuring the line between private property and the public beach, there is little standing in the way of a claim that wave action moves property lines. Good thing Maverick's, with its 100-footers, isn't nearby.
Posted on January 30, 2007 in ▪ Shoreline | CZMA | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Trespassing on Shoreline Private Property
No easy answers on seawalls, a column in today's Advertiser, poses an interesting question. Is it legal to walk on seawalls where there is no beach makai (seaward) of the wall:
Q. In Kane'ohe Bay on O'ahu, there are numerous stretches of the coastline that do not have a beach but rather, the 'aina ends abruptly with a seawall that is about 2 to 5 feet high. Walking along the makai side of the seawall is not possible due to the depth of the ocean, so is it OK to walk on top of the seawall? Would this be considered the high water mark?
A. There's no easy answer, and this might be something for the Legislature to address.
The article then goes on to discuss the possibilities: the legislature can address the issue, or perhaps such seawalls are already subject to public use. Let me add my two cents on these points.
The issue is whether the tops of these seawalls are public or private property. I suppose the Legislature could declare that the public is allowed to walk atop all such seawalls. However, unless that law provided for compensation for property owners, it would likely be unconstitutional as a regulatory taking. The Legislature, you see, has no power to declare that private property is open to public access without the payment of just compensation. The US Supreme Court held in Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) -- the case arising out of the efforts to make Hawaii Kai marina a public waterway -- that just because the government has the power to regulate private property does not mean it has the power to force public access without condemning the property and paying just compensation.
This rule would prohibit the Legislature from mandating public access to all seawalls under, for example, the Coastal Zone Management Act, which is a regulatory system, and contains no compensation mechanism.
Under Hawaii law, the boundary between public and private beachfront is defined by the "high wash of the waves." See In re Ashford, 50 Haw. 314, 440 P.2d 76 (1968). For existing permitted seawalls, the "high wash" presumably is somewhere below the top of the seawall, so there should be no public ability to walk across the top, and it is too late for government to retroactively require public access. For future seawall permits, the government could not require access as a condition of building or repair, unless the government could also show that the seawall would impair existing lateral access along the public beach. If not, access cannot be made a condition of a permit.
The final issue involves seawalls that are built on private land, but inhibit the "normal" wash of the waves. Is the public/private boundary thus mauka (mountainwards) of the seawall because the "natural" high wash of the waves in presumably inland? I'd suggest no.
The Ashford rule is not based on the "natural" or "unimpeded" high wash of the waves, and ancient Hawaiian culture and traditions recognized that manmade structures inhibit wave action, the most well-known being the rock walls of loko kuapa fishponds, which resemble seawalls. Under Hawaiian custom, these rock walls were not subject to public access, and were treated as the equivalent of private fast (dry) land. For an example of their treatment under Hawaii and U.S. law, see Boone v. United States, 944 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1989), a case I litigated a few years back. Besides, any rule that is based on the "natural" flow of the waves is simply unworkable, for what is the baseline for "natural" and when is it measured, when the size and shape of beaches change all the time for a variety of causes? Legal rules are supposed to provide a measure of certainty, and as the title of today's article rightly suggests, there are, unfortunately, no "easy answers," and the public and property owners are left guessing for the most part.
Posted on January 29, 2007 in ▪ Property rights, ▪ Regulatory takings, ▪ Shoreline | CZMA | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
Posted on January 28, 2007 in ▪ Environmental law, ▪ Land use law, ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Hawaii Land Use Conference Summary
I had the pleasure and honor to participate as faculty in this year's Hawaii Land Use Conference, which wrapped up yesterday.
The two-day conference covered the spectrum of topics relating to land use, including eminent domain, regulatory takings, endangered species act and federal Corps of Engineers permits, the treatment of agricultural land under Hawaii's unique regulatory system, zoning and subdivision rules, RLUIPA, vested rights and development agreements, and cultural impact statements. All presented by the leaders in their respective fields. I presented a session of shoreline law and regulation (materials posted here), and spent the remainder of the time listening.
Great stuff. If you didn't have the chance to attend this year, you should consider it for next.
Posted on January 27, 2007 in ▪ Land use law, ▪ Seminars | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Land Use Law Conference Materials
For those of you who attended the Hawaii Land Use Law Conference, thank you. Here are the materials I mentioned in my session on Water, Water, Everywhere: Coastal Zone Management Permits; Hawaii's Floodway, Floodplain and Coastal Inundation Zone Requirements, plus a few others I did not have time to cover:
Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
Summary of the Leslie case and commentary - one of last year's "big cases" applying the CZMA, and what is "development" under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 205A-22. My amicus brief in that case can be downloaded here.
Summary of Diamond case and commentary - 2006's second "big case" about the CZMA; the "shoreline" issue determined in that case was about the baseline for setbacks, not ownership.
The three most important administrative law 2006 HAWSCT opinions (standing, "property," and what is a "contested case").
Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U.S. 164 (1979) - government's ability to regulate does not equal the ability to affect ownership rights without just compensation.
Boone v. United States, 944 F.2d 1489 (9th Cir. 1989) - guess what, Kaiser Aetna meant what it said.
Alameda Gateway, Ltd. v. United States, 45 Fed. Cl. 757 (1999) - Kaiser Aetna really meant what it said - just because a navigable ship repair facility in San Francisco Bay is subject to regulation does not mean property rights are affected.
State of Hawaii Office of State Planning; Guide to State Permits and Approvals for Land and Water Use and Development (Draft 1995) (600kb pdf) - detailing the 55 or more permits that may be applicable to Hawaii property (at least circa 1995).
The "permit register" statute, Haw. Rev. Stat. § 46-18(a)
Items I didn't have time to talk about, but are worth mentioning:
Sandy Beach Defense Fund v. City Council, 70 Haw. 361, 773 P.2d 250 (1989) - intervenors in SMA permit applications don't get a contested case in Honolulu.
County of Kauai v. Pacific Standard Life Ins. Co., 65 Haw. 318, 653 P.2d 766 (1982) (Nukolii) - under the regulatory scheme applicable to the Nukolii parcel, the SMA permit would have been the "last discretionary act" (and therefore the official assurances on which the landowner had a right to rely) if the election had not been certified. Because it had been certified pre-SMA permit approval, the election was the "official assurance," so any reliance was premature.
Participant's Guide to the SMA Permit (10mb pdf)
Hawaii Hazard Mitigation Forum
NOAA Hawaii Coastal Zone Evaluation report (2004) (pdf)
Posted on January 25, 2007 in ▪ Seminars, ▪ Shoreline | CZMA | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Even More Eminent Domain Measures Introduced (Last Ones)
In addition to the bills mentioned earlier here and here, even more measures have been introduced in the Hawaii legislature to amend state eminent domain law. I believe that these are it for the year, as the deadline to introduce bills has now passed.
HB 1592, "Relating to eminent domain"
Prohibits use of eminent domain for private purpose; defines private purpose; where condemned property is transferred to private entity, not a common carrier or public utility, burden is on condemning authority to prove public purpose.
"The Hawaii supreme court, in a previous decision, Hawaii Housing Authority v. Lyman, 68 Haw. 55, 704 P.2d 888 (1985), indicated that it would not interpret the "public use" provisions of article I, section 20, of the Hawaii state constitution as broadly as the United States Supreme Court has interpreted the corresponding provisions of the fifth amendment. Nevertheless, the Hawaii supreme court in that opinion afforded deference to the governmental right to take property that was almost as great as that set forth in Kelo."
HB 1591, "Relating to eminent domain"
Establishes that the just condemnation price for agricultural land shall be 125% of value assessed pursuant to section 101-23, HRS, plus loss to business, plus relocation costs; for primary residence, 150%, plus loss to business or trade, plus relocation cost; for other property, 100%, plus loss to business or trade, plus cost of relocation.
HB 1590, "Relating to eminent domain"
Requires plaintiff to offer to resell property to defendant for current appraised value or condemnation price plus and cost of environmental remediation or cleanup or other improvements if property taken in eminent domain is not used for the purpose for which it was condemned.
Posted on January 24, 2007 | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ State of the Judiciary
The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Hawaii has given his State of the Judiciary address, available here. Here's an excerpt:
Legislators, as you well know, enact laws in accordance with what they understand to be the popular will and in the public interest. Judges, however, apply the law that is the result of longstanding common law traditions and legislative processes to the evidence in individual cases; judges do so even when the loudest voices at the time may have other conceptions about what the law or result should be in a particular case. In short, a judge's first and foremost duty is to fairly and impartially apply the constitution and the law to the facts of the case. A judge's personal feelings about what the law "should be" has no place in his or her deliberations.
Posted on January 24, 2007 in ▪ Appellate law | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ More Eminent Domain Measures Introduced
In addition to the bills I mentioned earlier, more measures have been introduced in the Hawaii legislature to amend state eminent domain law.
SB 1278, "Relating to eminent domain"
"However, the legislature finds that other takings of private property for transfer to private entities may be susceptible to abuse. Even under Kelo, the taking of property from one person simply to benefit another private person violates the protections of the public use clause. Similarly, a taking that is intended to favor a private party, with only incidental or pretextual public benefits, would not be sustained. Likewise, a taking that is simply for the purpose of providing economic benefits without remedying any harm or public nuisance is not within the meaning of "public use" envisioned by the framers of article I, section 20, of the Hawaii state constitution."
SB 1277, "Relating to eminent domain"
SB 1279, "Relating to eminent domain"
SB 1280, "Relating to eminent domain"
Requires condemning authority to make offer of settlement. Makes condemning authority liable for defendant's litigation expenses if offer rejected and court award is greater than offer.
Posted on January 23, 2007 in ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Honolulu Street Widening Halted
It's being reported that the Hawaii Community Development Authority has backed off its plans to widen Queen Street in Honolulu because of delays and increasing costs. The plans would have used the power of eminent domain to take the property of businesses on both sides of the street. More stories posted here and here (video). Update (2/8/2007) - the Star-Bulletin reports that the ID 11 project was killed by a unanimous vote by HDCA.
The widening project was thought by many to be a "done deal," believing there was no way to stop the taking. But this just shows that even in a jurisdiction with fairly weak protections for owners whose property is targeted for acquisition by the government, there are ways to object and protect your property.
Posted on January 22, 2007 in ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ No Jury Trial on "Constitutionality" of Land Use Laws
According to one U.S. District Court (N.D. Iowa), there is no right to a jury trial on the issue of whether a land use ordinance is constitutional. The decision applies City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 526 U.S. 687 (1999). In Doctor John's Inc., v. City of Sioux City, a case involving the regulation of the plaintiff's "adult" store, the district court held that the City has no Seventh Amendment right to trial by jury on the issue of whether its ordinances are constitutional.
The court's decision can be found here (pdf).
Posted on January 22, 2007 in ▪ Land use law | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Eminent Domain Measures Introduced
Several measures have been introduced at the Hawaii Legislature dealing with eminent domain. Recall that several such measures were introduced last year in response to the Kelo decision, but none made it out of committee. Nor did last November's voter reform of eminent domain make its way to Hawaii's shores, since Hawaii law does not allow statewide initiative or referendum.
So it is almost entirely up to the legislature. Here are summaries or excerpts of the proposals, so far. If I missed any, let me know:
SB 189, "Relating to the Counties' Eminent Domain Powers"
Restricts the eminent domain powers of the counties to ensure that private property, if acquired by a county through its eminent domain powers, is acquired only for public uses and not for private use.
SB 872, "Relating to Counties"
Same as above, with different language.
SB 1053 "Relating to Eminent Domain"
Prohibits use of power of eminent domain to take and transfer private property to a private entity that had expressed interest in purchasing the same property for development purposes or other private use.
"SECTION 1. In the wake of the recent United States Supreme Court decision in Kelo v. New London, 125 S.Ct. 2655 (2005), there has been a growing concern that the need for urban renewal or economic development may be cited as justification for allowing government to condemn private property and transfer the property to the benefit of another private person or entity. In many cases the receiving private entity had expressed an earlier interest in the condemned property for development or other private use.
"The purpose of this Act is to prohibit the exercise of the power of eminent domain to take private property and transfer the property to another private entity for development purposes where the receiving private entity had earlier expressed an interest in developing the condemned property."
SB 190 "Relating to Eminent Domain Powers"
Prohibits the State and counties from condemning private property for a private economic interest or a private entity who expressed an interest in developing that same property for development purposes or private use before the condemnation.
Amending the general eminent domain statute: "§ 101-2 Taking private property for public use; disposal of excess property. Private property may be taken for public use[.]; provided that public use for purposes of eminent domain powers shall not be construed to include the condemning of private property and the subsequent transfer of that same property to a private entity that expressed an interest in purchasing that same property for development or commercial purposes or private use before the condemnation.
Also amends the statute relating to the counties' scope of eminent domain: 6) Each county shall have the power to exercise the power of condemnation by eminent domain, in accordance with section 46-61, when it is in the public interest to do so; provided that no county shall condemn private property and subsequently transfer that same property to a private entity that expressed an interest in purchasing that same property for development or commercial purposes or private use before the condemnation.
HB 642, "Relating to Public Utilities"
Requires electric utilities to obtain a certificate of public good from the public utilities commission for the construction of any electric transmission or generation facility, prior to beginning site preparation or exercising the right of eminent domain.
[Note: The phrase "right of eminent domain" just irks me. Governments don't have "rights," they have "powers," and only those powers delegated to the government by the people. In our constitutional system, the people have rights. Often, however, this distinction is lost, and government acts as if it was exercising a "right" of eminent domain, and not a limited power.]
Posted on January 20, 2007 in ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Advanced Land Use Seminar Materials
To those who attended today's land use seminar -- thank you. If you have any questions that were not answered, please email me, or if you would like additional copies of the law review article handed out. Here are the additional references and materials from my sessions on "Supreme Court Update" and "Vested Rights" --
Rapanos Clean Water Act jurisdiction case opinions
Jones v. Flowers due process notice decision
City & County of Honolulu v. Sherman eminent domain and RLUIPA decision
Didden v. Village of Port Chester (cert denied 1/16/207)
County of Kauai ex rel Nakazawa v. Baptiste standing and property tax issue (argument 2/15/2007)
The summary of 2006's significant land use events is posted here.
Posted on January 17, 2007 in ▪ Seminars | Permalink
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review
As a way of saying "aloha" to 2006, I've summarized the land use law highlights (or lowlights, depending on your point of view) from the Hawaii Supreme Court, the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court, roughly in chronological order. Topics include shorelines, eminent domain, environmental impact statements, RLUIPA, vested rights, and land use litigation procedures.
Depends What the Meaning of "Shall" Is: Leslie v. Bd. of Appeals, County of Hawaii (HAWSCT) (nondiscretionary actions, shoreline area boundaries)
Environmental Assessments, Early and Probably Often: Sierra Club v. Office of Planning, State of Hawaii (HAWSCT) (environmental assessments, boundary amendments)
Eminent Domain and Land Reform Revisited: City & County of Honolulu v. Sherman (HAWSCT) (eminent domain, RLUIPA)
What to do if the Government Changes its Mind: Arrow of Time: Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii, 27 U. Haw. L. Rev. 17 (Feb. 2006) (vested rights)
Hawaii Water Law is Not a Federal Case: Maui Tomorrow v. State of Hawaii (HAWSCT) (attorneys fees, water rights)
No Leg to Stand On: Keahole Defense Coalition, Inc. v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res. (HAWSCT) (standing, what is a "property" interest)
The Supreme Court Muddies the Clean Water Act: Rapanos v. United States (SCOTUS) (Clean Water Act jurisdiction)
Return to Sender - Elvis and Notice: Jones v. Flowers (SCOTUS) (due process notice to property owners)
What is a "Contested Case?" - Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm'n (HAWSCT) (administrative appeals, contested cases)
Who Protects the Public Trust? - Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners (HAWSCT) (water pollution, public trust)
Contesting Contested Cases: Hui Kako Aina Hoopulapula v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res. (HAWSCT) (administrative appeals, contested cases)
RLUIPA and Local Land Use: Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter (9th Cir.) (RLUIPA and local land use)
Hawaii Eminent Domain Compendium (eminent domain)
Shoreline Tales: Diamond v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res. (HAWSCT) (CZMA shoreline certifications)
Voters Nationwide (But Not Hawaii) Enact Eminent Domain Reform (property rights, eminent domain)
New Appellate Track: In re Water Use Permit Applications [Waiahole] (HAWSCT) (appellate jurisdiction, water rights)
Honolulu "Fixed Guideway" Mass Transit Approved (eminent domain)
If you think I missed any key cases or events, please email me.
Posted on January 17, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Appellate law, ▪ Articles and publications, ▪ Development agreements, ▪ Environmental law, ▪ Land use law, ▪ Property rights, ▪ Rail, ▪ RLUIPA | religious land use, ▪ Shoreline | CZMA, ▪ Water rights | Public trust | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Supreme Court: Eminent Domain Extortion OK
Your rights for sale in the Second Circuit: SCOTUS today denied cert, declining to review the Didden v. Village of Port Chester petition. Details here. The facts of the case are particularly egregious, a nearly textbook example of the pretextual taking the Court told us would not qualify as a taking "for public use" in Kelo. In return for a private developer's promise to withhold an exercise of eminent domain, a landowner was offered a choice: give the developer $800,000, or a one-half interest in the owner's planned use of the property.
When the Supreme Court denies review it does not establish any precedent or rule of law, and the Second Circuit's decision in the case has no impact outside of that court's geographical jurisdiction (New York, Connecticut, Vermont), so the issue remains up for grabs, and will be sure to return.
Posted on January 16, 2007 in ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Still Time to Register for Advanced Land Use Seminar
Registrations are still being accepted for the upcoming Advanced Land Use and Zoning in Hawaii seminar, taking place on Wednesday, January 17, 2007.
We will cover a variety of topics. I'm presenting an update on US and Hawaii Supreme Court decisions from the last year including the Clean Water Act jurisdiction case, and an update on vested rights and development agreements. My Damon Key colleagues are presenting sessions on shoreline law, the latest in environmental impact statement requirements, the ins-and-outs of rockfall liability, and an update on land use litigation procedures. Paul Schwind will present an update on legislative developments. View course details, the complete agenda, and registration information here.
Posted on January 13, 2007 in ▪ Seminars | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
▪ HSBA Natural Resources Section Rapanos Discussion Materials
I've posted discussion materials for the upcoming HSBA Natural Resources Section talk on the post-Rapanos landscape. All documents are in pdf format. Caution: a couple of files are large, and may take a while to download.
Rapanos opinions (SCOTUS) (800kb)
Amicus Curiae brief of American Farm Bureau Federation (3mb)
Healdsburg opinion (9th Circuit) (73kb)
Chevron Pipeline order (N.D. Tex.) (62kb)
Johnson opinion (5th Circuit) (100kb)
proposed amendments to admin rules (200kb)
Morrison cert petition (2mb)
If you have any questions you want discussed at the session, please email me.
Posted on January 11, 2007 in ▪ Environmental law, ▪ Seminars | Permalink | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: "Fixed Guideway" System Approved
On Christmas Eve 2006, the Honolulu City Council approved a $4B+ "fixed guideway" mass transit system to run from somewhere in West Oahu to somewhere in town. The nature of the system has not been selected (rail, busway, something else), nor has the route. But in January 2007, a half-percent increase in the general excise tax became effective, the proceeds from which are earmarked for the transit system. City officials say it's a "go."
I've made a few comments about the impact of a mass transit project on property owners (here, here, here, and here), but it is too early in the process to note any concrete legal developments. I've included the fixed guideway story in 2006's land use highlights, however, since I suspect the legal issues will loom larger and larger as the project -- the largest public works project in Hawaii's history -- moves forward.
Posted on January 4, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Property rights, ▪ Rail | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: New Appellate Track
The most recent case involving the long-standing controversy over the Waiahole Ditch, In re Water Use Permit Applications, ___ Haw. ___, 147 P.3 836 (Nov. 29, 2006) was not the usual blockbuster opinion or the latest in water rights, interim instream flow standards, and the public trust doctrine. Indeed, it was an unsigned per curiam decision. But I have included it within 2006's highlights simply because it illustrates the new appellate procedures in Hawaii state courts.
Until the new procedures which became effective in July 2006, Hawaii state court cases had a unique appellate track. After a trial court entered judgment, all appeals were made to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, which then assigned cases to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. If a litigant was not satisfied with the decision from the ICA, she could seek review in the Supreme Court by way of an application for a discretionary writ of certiorari. Most cases, however, were not assigned from the Supreme Court to the ICA, and the high court routinely disposed of most appeals. The "up-then-down" procedure was unwieldy and an anachronism, a leftover from the days before the legislature created the ICA, and all appeals were straight to the Supreme Court. The procedure also was a factor in creating a backlog of appeals on the Supreme Court's docket.
In July 2006, however, new jurisdictional statutes became effective, resulting in the ICA having primary appellate jurisdiction over all appeals, with the Supreme Court retaining discretionary certiorari review.
Apparently, however, the drafters at the legislature did not catch all of the language regarding appellate jurisdiction scattered throughout the Hawaii Revised Statutes. For example, the Water Code still states that appeals from contested case decisions by the Commission on Water Resource Management are made "directly to the supreme court."
After CWRM issued (yet another) order in the contest over the water in the Waiahole Ditch in July 2006, a party noticed its appeal on August 11, 2006 with the Supreme Court, even though the new appellate structure had become effective the month before. Understandable, for considering the plain language of the Water Code, what else should the litigant have done?
The Supreme Court ordered the case transferred to the ICA, holding that the legislature's failure to amend the Water Code language was merely an oversight since it amended fifth-three other sections in the statute books relating to appellate jurisdiction, and that the legislature no doubt intended to amend the Water Code as well. Lesson? File all appeals with the ICA.
It will be helpful after a few years under this system to see if the Supreme Court as a purely discretionary body experiences a shrinking of its docket, and a speedier process from filing to disposition. It would be helpful to those of us who practice appellate law, for example, to establish criteria for when a decision by the ICA is "certworthy" and likely to be reviewed by the Supreme Court. Hawaii has only one ICA, so there are no circuit or district "splits." If the Supreme Court is simply to be yet another level of appellate review for dissatisfied litigants without clear standards for when it would be worthwhile to seek review, why does anyone think this will significantly decrease the court's workload?
Posted on January 4, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Appellate law, ▪ Water rights | Public trust | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Voters Nationwide (But Not Hawaii) Enact Eminent Domain Reform
The big story nationwide in property rights and eminent domain was, of course, the overwhelming negative reaction to 2005's Kelo v. City of New London decision, which overflowed into 2006. That reaction has manifested itself in three ways:
Taking up the Supreme Court's suggestion that state law was the means to protect property from eminent domain abuse, state legislatures and local governments around the country began restricting how the condemnation power has been exercised.
State courts have also taken up the challenge, the biggest development in 2006 being the City of Norwood v. Horney decision from the Ohio Supreme court. That case held that economic benefit standing alone will not support a claim of public use under the Ohio Constitution. The court also held that a blight designation was too vague to have any legal force, and violated the Ohio Constitution. Now, if only Mrs. Kelo and other property owners subject to overaggressive use of eminent domain could move their properties to Ohio or Michigan.
In the November 2006 election, several states passed eminent domain reform by constitutional amendment or initiative. New Jersey Eminent Domain blog posted a summary of the election results. These results tell me that property rights in general, and eminent domain reform specifically, are topics that have some traction and may cut across political lines.
None of these approaches has yet been adopted by the Hawaii Legislature, the Hawaii courts, or Hawaii voters.
How come? The legislature had before it at least four proposals to reform eminent domain, and not one made it out of committee. Hawaii appellate courts have not yet been confronted squarely with the issue, which did not arise in the one major eminent domain decision issued by the Hawaii Supreme Court in 2006. Finally, initiative is not available in Hawaii on matters of state law, or locally on matters of statewide concern, so there is no possibility of Hawaii voters having a chance to directly enact eminent domain measures if the legislature refuses to do so.
Posted on January 4, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Shoreline Tales
One of 2006's bigger cases was Diamond v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res., 112 Haw. 161, 145 P.3d 704 (Oct. 24, 2006), involving the location of the "shoreline" for purposes of determining the buildable area on an oceanfront parcel.
There was news coverage a-plenty, and I posted more than a few comments on the case and on the coverage. Start here, then read this, this, this, then this post.
I'd bet this case will have lasting impact, even though it was not about the public-private boundary, and only analyzed the location of the "shoreline" under Hawaii's Coastal Zone Management Act.
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Inverse condemnation, ▪ Land use law, ▪ Property rights, ▪ Regulatory takings, ▪ Shoreline | CZMA | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Hawaii Eminent Domain Compendium Published
In September, the ABA Section on Litigation (Committee on Condemnation, Zoning and Land Use) published Law and Procedure of Eminent Domain in the 50 States, a state-by-state summary of each jurisdiction's eminent domain laws and cases. I authored the chapter on Hawaii.
Topics covered include who has the power to take, sources for condemnation authority, the rules of just compensation, and the procedural aspects of eminent domain litigation.
The individual state chapters, mine included, are posted for download for ABA members here.
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Articles and publications, ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: RLUIPA and Local Land Use
Revisiting the RLUIPA issue, the Ninth Circuit held in Guru Nanak Sikh Society of Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978 (9th Cir., Aug. 1, 2006) that a local land use decision regarding a church's proposed use of its property violated the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. While it is not a groundbreaking case, it illustrates the competing dynamics when a church's desires to use its property clashes with local land use rules. My summary of the case is posted here.
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Land use law, ▪ RLUIPA | religious land use | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Administrative law, ▪ Land use law, ▪ Water rights | Public trust | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Who Protects the Public Trust?
The "public trust" doctrine got a further boost in Kelly v. 1250 Oceanside Partners, 111 Haw. 205, 140 P.3d 985 (July 28, 2006).
The public trust doctrine in its original form under Hawaii law was that the Crown or government owns title to all land below the high water mark, which is held in trust for the people for navigation and other public purposes. In other words, land under the ocean is a public resource, and incapable of private ownership. This doctrine has historical roots in American and English common law.
In more recent times, that ancient doctrine was expanded when the courts, following the suggestion of influential academics, began using the doctrine to justify finding that more and more resources were subject to the trust, and therefore not private property. While there is some debate about whether the public trust affects ownership of property subject to the trust, the doctrine was expanded to cover all water resources (not just submerged land), new land formed by lava flows, and beachfront land makai of the high wash of the waves. These forms of property, the court determined, was held in trust by the government as a public resource, to be protected for "future generations."
The Kelly case, however, was not about further geographic expansion of the public trust, as it involved waters well within the scope of the original doctrine -- nearshore ocean waters, which the parties did not dispute were subject to the trust. Rather, the question before the court was the scope of the duty imposed by the trust, namely which government entity has the obligation to enforce and protect the trust.
The background facts: After heavy rains caused a landowner's erosion control measures to fail, dirt and other runoff ended up in the nearby ocean. The plaintiffs asserted, among a litany of claims, that the County of Hawaii had a public trust duty to prevent the runoff and water pollution since it had allowed the landowner to grade its property as part of a large scale luxury development. The plaintiffs also alleged that the landowner violated the terms of a water pollution control permit issued by the State of Hawaii Department of Health.
The County did not contest the existence of a public trust duty to protect nearshore waters, but argued it was the State's duty, not the County's. The court disagreed, holding that the Hawaii Constitution requires all governmental entities, including the state and "political subdivisions" to "conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and natural resources." Haw. Const. art. XI, § 1. The court noted that the terms "political subdivision" and "county" as used in the constitutional text are straightforward, and expressly command both the State and County governments to affirmatively protect public trust resources. The court held, however, that despite the existence of this duty, the plaintiffs had not proven the County breached it.
Additionally, the court determined that the state's duty to protect the public trust went beyond simply enforcing its statutes. The court held that the government has the obligation at "every stage" of the planning process to "take the initiative" in protecting the resource, and its role goes beyond that of a "mere umpire."
While the decision was, technically, a win for the State and the County (the court found that neither breached their duties in this case), it certainly does not forecast an easier future for governments or especially for property owners who wish to exercise their constitutional right to make reasonable use of their land. By adding yet another layer of regulation with a constitutional nature -- while leaving the standards very amorphous -- Kelly has further complicated the land use process with little guidance to governments or property owners.
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Environmental law, ▪ Land use law, ▪ Property rights, ▪ Shoreline | CZMA, ▪ Water rights | Public trust | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: What is a Contested Case
In Aha Hui Malama O Kaniakapupu v. Land Use Comm'n, 111 Haw. 14, 139 P.3d 712 (July 24, 2006), the court set forth the standard for when an agency hearing is a "contested case" under the Hawaii Administrative Procedures Act (HAPA). The definition is critical because unless a contested case has been conducted by an agency, a circuit court will have no subject matter jurisdiction to consider an appeal from the agency's decision.
A group opposed to a landowner's use of its property argued that conditions imposed by the Land Use Commission in its earlier approval of a boundary amendment had not been complied with by the landowner. The group filed a motion for an order to show cause why the boundary amendment should not be revoked. The LUC held a hearing and denied the motion. The group appealed to the circuit court under HAPA.
The circuit court dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the hearing on the motion for an order to show cause was not a "contested case" as defined by the administrative procedures act. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A hearing to consider a motion for an order to show cause was not a "contested case" as defined in HAPA, so the circuit court lacked appellate jurisdiction under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14. The court reiterated the two-part test to determine whether a hearing qualifies as a contested case:
The hearing is "required by law," which means that a rule, statute, or constitutional due process require a hearing;
The hearing determines the "rights, duties, or privileges of specific parties."
The court held that the LUC was required by its rules to hold a hearing on motions when requested by a party, and that the first part of the above test was satisfied. However, the hearing did not determine the objecting group's rights, only perhaps the rights of the landowner, so the second part of the test was not met. If the LUC had granted the motion and held a hearing on the order to show cause, then the result would have been different, as that hearing would be a "contested case."
Finally, the court held that the correct result was jurisdictional dismissal, not a remand to hold a contested case. If a court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear an appeal under Haw. Rev. Stat. § 91-14, it has no jurisdiction to remand. What about the seeming lack of judicial review of the LUC's decision to deny the request to hold a hearing on the order to show cause? On that issue, the court did not seem bothered by the fact that LUC's decision is essentially immune:
Lastly, the Hui argues that, "[i]f the [c]ircuit [c]ourt has no jurisdiction to determine if an appellant were entitled to a contested case hearing after having requested one, any agency could arbitrarily and capriciously deny anyone a hearing at any time, regardless of whether such hearing were required by law, and the aggrieved party could never obtain judicial review of such denial." However, in this case, the Hui did not request a contested case hearing. Indeed, the Hui concedes that "there is no procedural vehicle for '[a]ny party or interested person' to obtain a contested case hearing on whether a petitioner has failed to perform according to the conditions imposed or has failed to perform according to the representations or commitments she made[.]" Consequently, the Hui's assertion is without merit.
To the court it is simple: no contested case, no judicial review (at least under HAPA).
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Administrative law, ▪ Land use law | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Return to Sender - Elvis and Notice
In Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. ___ (Apr. 26, 2006), the U.S. Supreme Court answered the question of what further obligation the government has to provide a property owner notice of an impending sale of his property when a certified letter is, in the words of the classic Elvis song, "Returned to Sender." The opinion answered whether the Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a state to take additional reasonable steps to notify a property owner of an impending tax sale if a written notice is returned undelivered.
Mr. Jones didn't pay his property taxes. The State of Arkansas, like most government entities, did not appreciate Mr. Jones' oversight, and after several years of such behavior, sent him a certified letter informing him that if he didn't pay up, his house would be sold. Mr. Jones, however, had moved out of the house, so he didn't get the letter, which was returned to the state "unclaimed." The state, hearing no response from Mr. Jones, published a notice in the newspaper and sold the house.
Jones sued, asserting that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires the government do something more if a certified letter is returned undelivered.
The Court agreed, holding that the state should have taken additional steps to provide Jones with actual notice. It is not sufficient to send a letter that is returned undelivered and to publish a notice in a newspaper. The "government must take additional reasonable steps to provide notice before taking the owner's property."
Due process does not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the taking, but the notice the government provides must be "reasonably calculated" under the circumstances to apprise the party of the pendency of the action and provide them an opportunity to object. The key fact in the case was that the government knew its attempt to provide notice by certified mail had failed, since the letter was returned undelivered.
The government had an obligation, the Court held, to do something more, such as resend it by regular mail. The Court did not define the outer limits of what due process requires, only that the State of Arkansas had not done enough before the forced sale of a person's home and property.
In the Court's words, "I tried" is not good enough. Elvis would be proud.
Posted on January 3, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction
Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. ___ (Jun 19, 2006) was this year's big environmental case from the U.S. Supreme Court, yet it did little to resolve the question over the geographic scope of "navigable waters" as used in the Clean Water Act. The CWA requires a property owner seek a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers prior to any activity that may involve "navigable waters of the United States." The facts of the case are set out here.
The Court split 4-4-1, holding to overturn the decision of the Corps to require a Michigan landowner to seek a permit, but could not agree on a rationale. The plurality decision left most commentators scratching their heads, unsure of what the rule of law was in the wake of the decision, and how to apply a ruling on which there was no majority opinion. As in last term's Kelo and Lingle cases, Justice Kennedy issued a separate opinion that may forecast the eventual majority rule of law.
Since I first wrote about the Rapanos decision, the issue has not become any clearer. The lower courts are split as to how to apply the various opinions, and how to analyze CWA jurisdiction. Another landowner caught up in the CWA net has asked for cert review, that as of this post, has not been acted upon by the Court.
Until the Supreme Court resolves the question, the lower courts will be as confused as the commentators, and property owners who may be affected remain in legal purgatory.
Link: Rapanos blog.
Posted on January 2, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Agriculture, ▪ Environmental law, ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ 2006 Land Use in Review: No Leg to Stand On
In Keahole Defense Coalition, Inc. v. Bd. of Land and Nat. Res., 110 Haw. 419, 134 P.3d 585 (May 18, 2006), the Hawaii Supreme Court elaborated on the issue of when a party has "property" within the meaning of the due process clause of the Hawaii Constitution.
The twisted procedural history of the case is not worth repeating in detail. Suffice it to say that the appellant claimed that a state-issued license to provide telecommunications service was "property" protected by article I, section 20 of the Hawaii Constitution.
The court disagreed, holding the license holder did not have "standing," and the license was not a constitutionally-protected property interest The court emphasized these points:
"Standing" is a jurisdictional doctrine - no standing, no jurisdiction. Important because: the lack of standing can be raised at any time in a case.
The test for standing to appeal is somewhat different than other standing tests: the person must have been a party below, must have had standing in the trial court to oppose the order appealed from, and must be affected or prejudiced by the order.
The "standing" doctrine and the concept of due process "property" are intertwined, and what the court characterized as an economic interest, standing alone, does not constitute "property." With no property at stake, the appellant did not have standing to participate.
The court tied the standing and property issues together by holding that even if the license was property, the appellant did not show how its license would be affected by the acts complained of. In other words, the appellant did not demonstrate a concrete injury that could be remedied by a judicial decision.
This case should not be misread to say that a license never can be "property," since in this case, the state agency with the authority to issue the license retained the discretion to not issue it. It would have been an entirely different matter, for example, if the license had been issued.
Posted on January 2, 2007 in ▪ 2006 in review, ▪ Administrative law, ▪ Appellate law, ▪ Land use law, ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)
▪ Give Me Money, or Else I Will Take Your Property
More on Didden v. Port Chester, a case involving a demand for money in exchange for not exercising eminent domain, here:
Didden refused. The next day, the Village of Port Chester began legal proceedings to seize Didden's land by eminent domain.
Lawyers for Didden took the matter to federal court. They even went to the FBI - all to no avail. Now they are asking the US Supreme Court to examine whether a private company can demand payment in exchange for refraining to seize private property in an urban renewal zone.
Background, including link to the cert petition.
Posted on January 1, 2007 in ▪ Property rights | Permalink | 0 Comments | TrackBack (0)