The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear three cases during its 2004-05 session with potential implications for planning, land regulation and development in California.
The court has accepted for review an eminent domain case from Connecticut, a case involving the installation of a radio antenna in Rancho Palos Verdes, and a takings case from Hawaii.
The eminent domain case might have the greatest potential impact on local planning. It concerns the use of eminent domain by the City of New London, Connecticut, to acquire 115 houses. After acquiring the property and paying the owners, the city intends to lease the land to a developer for construction of a waterfront hotel and conference center, a technology research and development office park, retail stores and 80 new homes.
The existing houses are working-class, but no one claims that the structures are a blight. Instead, the city has argued that it needs to acquire the property for the economic good of the community. The city says the proposed development would generate hundreds of new jobs and millions of dollars in taxes. Seven of the homeowners have fought New London's use of eminent domain, but the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 for the city.
For several years, property rights advocates have been trying to get a case like this one in front of the high court. The advocates argue that the government's taking of private property for strictly economic purposes - and not to accommodate a public works project or to abate a nuisance - is an abuse of eminent domain that violates the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. Government officials argue that concern for the economic welfare of citizens as a whole permits this use of eminent domain.
The case is Kelo v. City of New London, No. 04-108.
The antenna case comes from the wealthy Los Angeles County city of Rancho Palos Verdes and concerns the city's long-running battle with property owner Mark Abrams. About 15 years ago, the city permitted Abrams to erect a 52-foot-tall radio antenna on his property, near the peak of the Palos Verdes Peninsula. Years later, when the city learned that Abrams was using the antenna and others on his property for commercial transmissions, the city tried to shut him down. Abrams applied for a conditional use permit, but the city rejected it.
Abrams sued the city, arguing that it was violating the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and that he was eligible for damages under the federal Civil Rights Act. The Ninth Circuit agreed on both counts (see CP&DR Legal Digest, March 2004). The circuit courts, however, appear to be divided on the issue of damages.
Rancho Palos Verdes asked the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case. Several California cities and the League of California Cities have already weighed in on the Rancho Palos Verdes side.
The case is City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams, No. 03-1601.
The third case's implications for land use are more indirect. The case involves a State of Hawaii law that regulates the rent which oil companies may charge their dealer-run stations. The law also prevents the oil companies from taking over the stations. The law is an attempt to control gasoline prices.
The Ninth Circuit ruled that the law is an uncompensated taking of private property, in violation of the Fifth Amendment. Earlier this year, the Ninth Circuit extended the same reasoning to a mobile home rent control case from the City of Cotati. The court found the city's regulation of mobile home pad rents to be an illegal taking of private property from the mobile home park owners (see CP&DR Insight, October 2004; CP&DR Legal Digest, September 2004).
The decision in the Cotati case was built in large part on the Hawaii case, which the U.S. Supreme Court will now review. California was one of 19 states that asked the high court to review the decision because of its potential impact on economic regulations of all kinds.
The case is Lingle v. Chevron USA, No. 04-163.
Decisions in all three cases are due by June 30, 2005.
