Opinion ID: 46231
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Federal Takings Claim

Text: 27 The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Chicago, B. & Q.R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226, 17 S.Ct. 581, 584, 41 L.Ed. 979 (1897), directs that private property shall not be taken for public use, without just compensation. Before addressing the merits of any appeal, however, this court must be convinced that the claim in question is ripe, even if neither party has raised the issue. See Samaad v. City of Dallas, 940 F.2d 925, 933 (5th Cir.1991). Ripeness is a question of law that implicates this court's subject matter jurisdiction, which we review de novo. Sandy Creek Investors, Ltd. v. City of Jonestown, Tex., 325 F.3d 623, 626 (5th Cir.2003); Groome Res. Ltd., LLC v. Parish of Jefferson, 234 F.3d 192, 198-99 (5th Cir.2000). 28 The Supreme Court has adopted a two-prong test for ripeness under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, explaining that such claims are not ripe until (1) the relevant governmental unit has reached a final decision as to how the regulation will be applied to the landowner; and (2) the plaintiff has sought compensation for the alleged taking through whatever adequate procedures the state provides. See Williamson County Reg'l Planning Comm'n v. Hamilton Bank, 473 U.S. 172, 105 S.Ct. 3108, 3116, 3121, 87 L.Ed.2d 126 (1985). In adopting the first prong, the Court explained its reluctance to hear premature takings claims as follows: 29 this Court consistently has indicated that among the factors of particular significance in the [ Penn Central ] inquiry are the economic impact of the challenged action and the extent to which it interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations. Those factors simply cannot be evaluated until the administrative agency has arrived at a final, definitive position regarding how it will apply the regulations at issue to the particular land in question. 30 Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3118-19 (citations omitted). 31 For example, in Penn Central the Court declined to hold that New York City's Landmarks Preservation Law effected a taking as applied to Grand Central Terminal, reasoning that although the City had disapproved a plan for a 50-story building above the terminal, the property owners had not sought approval for an alternative plan, and it was therefore uncertain whether the City would disapprove of all economically beneficial uses of the land. Penn Central Transp. Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2665-66, 57 L.Ed.2d 631 (1978); see also Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255, 100 S.Ct. 2138, 65 L.Ed.2d 106 (1980), overruled on other grounds by First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County, 482 U.S. 304, 107 S.Ct. 2378, 96 L.Ed.2d 250 (1987) (rejecting a takings claim as unripe because the property's owner had not submitted a plan for development). This means that even if a plan is initially disapproved by the government, property owners must then seek variances or waivers, when potentially available, before a court will hear their takings claims. Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3117; Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U.S. 264, 101 S.Ct. 2352, 2371, 69 L.Ed.2d 1 (1981). This court has also held that whenever the property owner has ignored or abandoned some relevant form of review or relief, such that the takings decision cannot be said to be final, the takings claim should be dismissed as unripe. Hidden Oaks Ltd. v. City of Austin, 138 F.3d 1036, 1041 (5th Cir.1998). 32 Urban Developers' regulatory takings claim, that the City erroneously applied an otherwise valid flood plain ordinance, is unripe under this first prong. When Urban Developers was notified that the Mod Rehab contracts wouldn't be renewed, it suspended its plans to rehabilitate Town Creek and abandoned all avenues of review that were available to it. See Hidden Oaks, 138 F.3d at 1041. Shaikh admitted this at trial, explaining that our intention to repair the property was really contingent upon us having income at the property once we repaired it. Urban Developers submitted two building plans for approval by the City, both of which were rejected because they did not comply with the City's flood-zone ordinance. After this rejection, although represented by counsel, Urban Developers neither applied for a floodplain-development permit, nor pursued mandamus against the City's community development officer, nor availed itself of the appeal process set forth in the City of Jackson municipal code, which provides any person affected by an order issued by a housing official with an appeal to the circuit court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County. 7 Like the Court in Penn Central, we cannot evaluate the extent to which the City has interfered with Urban Developers' reasonable investment-backed expectations because no final decision has been made, nor even sought, regarding the application of the flood-zone ordinance. Accordingly, we dismiss as unripe Urban Developers' regulatory takings claim against the City of Jackson. 33 The Mississippi Takings Clause, like its federal counterpart, has also been interpreted to require finality. See Dunston v. Mississippi Dep't of Marine Res., 892 So.2d 837, 843 (Miss.App.2005) (citing Everitt v. Lovitt, 192 So.2d 422, 428 (Miss. 1966)) (The Dunstons never filed for, and subsequently were never denied, a permit to develop their property. Since the Dunstons have not exhausted all administrative remedies available to them this Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this claim, as it is unripe for judicial review.). Cf. San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, 545 U.S. 323, 125 S.Ct. 2491, 2506, 162 L.Ed.2d 315 (2005) (It was settled well before Williamson County that a claim that the application of government regulations effects a taking of a property interest is not ripe until the government entity charged with implementing the regulations has reached a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue.) (internal quotation omitted). 34 To the extent that Urban Developers may have ever alleged below an ordinary takings claim against the City, in addition to and as distinguished from the above described regulatory takings claim, it does not appear that any such claim against the City under the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause (or under the comparable provision of Art. III, § 17, of the Mississippi Constitution) was ever submitted to the jury. Moreover, any such ordinary takings claim would in any event also fail the first ripeness prong. The City has not made a final decision on whether to condemn the property, and has done nothing more than state its intent to proceed with condemnation. The Town Creek Apartments were still vacant and not condemned when suit was filed, and, as of the date of oral argument, so they remain. There has never been any actual physical taking (or occupation) of, or any actual physical damage to, the Town Creek Apartments, or any part thereof, by the City. Here we have only a threat to use the City's legal powers, and a mere threat does not constitute a taking, since a non-regulatory taking requires actual government confiscation or physical occupation. See Shaikh v. City of Chicago, 341 F.3d 627, 632 (7th Cir.2003) (citing Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S.Ct. 1465, 1478-79, 152 L.Ed.2d 517 (2002)). Furthermore, because a violation of the Takings Clause does not occur until just compensation is denied, any such ordinary takings claim by Urban Developers would likewise be unripe under the second prong of Williamson County, which requires the plaintiff to have sought compensation for the alleged taking through whatever adequate procedures the state provides before seeking to interpose the federal courts, through section 1983, between a state and its citizen. Williamson County, 105 S.Ct. at 3121. 8 Under this second prong, the property owner bears the burden of proving that state law proceedings are unavailable or inadequate. Williamson, 105 S.Ct. at 3122; see also Samaad, 940 F.2d at 934 (`[I]nadequate' procedures are those that almost certainly will not justly compensate the claimant.). Urban Developers has not discharged that burden here. Mississippi law provides for inverse-condemnation actions, see, e.g., City of Gulfport v. Anderson, 554 So.2d 873, 874 (Miss.1989), 9 yet Urban Developers has not sought compensation through Mississippi law for the alleged taking. See Bryan v. City of Madison, Miss., 213 F.3d 267, 276 n. 16 (5th Cir.2000) (rejecting a takings claim as unripe because the property owner had not first resorted to Mississippi's court of eminent domain). 35