[Capr-announce] Takings case win in Supreme Court

[Jeff Wright]

TO ALL PROPERTY RIGHTS SUPPORTERS,

 

Citizens' Alliance for Property Rights wishes to congratulate Pacific Legal
Foundation for an impressive property rights win before the U.S. Supreme
Court in the case of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District.
CAPR also thanks property owner Coy Koontz for having the courage to see
this through, which is no small achievement!   PLF used the same "nexus" and
"proportionality" arguments in "Koontz" that were used to win in CAPR v.
Sims against King County, WA.   Note also that PLF Northwest Center
principle attorney Brian Hodges, who represented CAPR in CAPR v. Sims was
also co-counsel in "Koontz"!  Brian tells us that he remains committed to
putting a similar case before the Washington Supreme Court. 

 

Read more below.

 

ONWARD!

 

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/25/us-usa-court-property-idUSBRE95O0X
M20130625 

Supreme Court rule for Florida property owner in land use case

 

WASHINGTON | Tue Jun 25, 2013 11:39am EDT 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In a victory for advocates of private property
rights, the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday said a Florida property owner may
be owed compensation from a government agency that declined to award him a
development permit for his land.

In a 5-4 ruling with the court's five conservative justices in the majority,
the court said Coy Koontz could pursue a property rights claim against the
St. Johns River Water Management District.

The legal issue was whether the agency's action constituted a "taking"
subject to compensation, under the so-called takings clause of the Fifth
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito said a government may not
condition a land-use permit on an owner giving up the use of some property
absent a "nexus" and "rough proportionality" between the demand and the
effect of the proposed land use. He said this applied even if the permit
were denied, and the demand was for money.

"So long as the building permit is more valuable than any just compensation
the owner could hope to receive for the right-of-way, the owner is likely to
accede to the government's demand, no matter how unreasonable," Alito wrote.
"Extortionate demands of this sort frustrate the Fifth Amendment right to
just compensation, and the unconstitutional conditions doctrine prohibits
them."

Joining Alito's opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices
Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas.

The decision was the culmination of a more than 18-year battle by Koontz and
his late father over the development of their nearly 15-acre (six-hectare)
parcel of land.

After Florida designated much of the parcel as protected wetlands, Koontz
proposed to develop about a quarter of it and dedicate the rest for
conservation, only to have local officials insist that he pay money to
protect wetlands elsewhere.

Koontz said no, and a trial court awarded him $327,500 for being unable to
use his property. Florida's Supreme Court then threw this award out, saying
that because St. Johns never issued a permit and Koontz never spent money,
"nothing was ever taken."

Justice Elena Kagan dissented from Tuesday's decision, joined by Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

Kagan said the majority "threatens to subject a vast array of land-use
regulations, applied daily in states and localities throughout the country,
to heightened constitutional scrutiny. I would not embark on so unwise an
adventure."

The case was sent back to Florida courts for further proceedings.

The case is Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, U.S.
Supreme Court, No. 1447.

(Reporting by Jonathan Stempel and Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Howard Goller
and Will Dunham)

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.celestial.com/pipermail/capr-announce/attachments/20130625/4bf90c09/attachment.html