Court Opinion

ID: 9789851
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 01:42:56.840361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:24.723792
License: Public Domain

Agid, J.
(concurring) — I concur with the majority on the facts of this case. A reasonable developer looking at a potential profit of $960,000 would have paid what we later decided was an illegal $10,000 exaction under protest in order to proceed with a very lucrative project. I write separately to point out that the discrepancy between the projected profit and the cost of the exaction is often not nearly so great as it was here. See, e.g., Henderson Homes, Inc. v. City of Bothell, 124 Wn.2d 240, 241, 877 P.2d 176 (1994). In a more marginal case where the applicant cannot afford to tie up a more substantial sum for years in litigation, it would not be reasonable to apply the mitigation doctrine. I do not understand the court to be adopting a blanket rule for all RCW 64.40 cases. I only wish to emphasize that what is "reasonable” will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Reconsideration denied August 4, 1997.
Review denied at 134 Wn.2d 1003 (1998).