tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post1211506848320948587..comments2024-03-27T04:02:47.206-04:00Comments on Old Urbanist: Tuesday Zoning/Takings Litigation UpdateCharlie Gardnerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-20106262859703439942012-05-24T00:42:54.690-04:002012-05-24T00:42:54.690-04:00My cousin recommended this blog and she was totall...My cousin recommended this blog and she was totally right keep up the fantastic work!<br /> <br /><br /><br /><a href="http://www.imarque.co.in/litigation.html" rel="nofollow">Litigation Coding</a>phatikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17973026392699074543noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-23258700509907839332012-02-10T15:06:42.920-05:002012-02-10T15:06:42.920-05:00Politicians and officials only have power when the...Politicians and officials only have power when they can prevent or permit people to do things. Consequently clear, broad, unambiguous rules are the last thing they want because it removes any leverage they can provide. Politicans and officials want people to curry their favor (and bribe them, either under the table or via "campaign contributions"), so they want laws which are utterly impossible to follow.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-35422047433880345162012-02-08T12:28:33.657-05:002012-02-08T12:28:33.657-05:00This whole zoning-by-waiver thing just seems so wr...This whole zoning-by-waiver thing just seems so wrong. The zoning laws in some places get so restrictive that pretty much any reasonable project requires a waiver, which requires bureaucracy, which favors the politically well-connected and increases the cost and number of middlemen. It also gives whomever it is that dispenses these waivers a considerable amount of power. In some places, you end up with the zoning board, rather than any zoning law, effectively deciding who can and can't build what. And that kind of goes against that whole "rule of law" thing we like to talk about so much in this country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-67108213350839961242012-02-08T11:46:09.645-05:002012-02-08T11:46:09.645-05:00Thanks, Chris, after reading it through again that...Thanks, Chris, after reading it through again that's a much better summary than I managed. I do wonder, though, whether the dissent's position that this will greatly undermine nuisance abatement is well founded. Is it likely that most nuisance cases involve enforcement that more clearly implicates the police power -- noise complaints, parking, dangerous conditions, etc, rather than demolishing entire houses?<br /><br />On the other hand, if a house really is in such dire condition that rehabilitation is not economical and demolition is warranted, it could be that the demolition actually increases the value of the property (saving the landowner the teardown costs). If an appraiser's finding on this point, and a board's acceptance of it, is not dispositive of the constitutional takings issue, it might perhaps dissuade an owner from bringing a complaint in the first place.Charlie Gardnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07317335121565650040noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7394091530012769761.post-11457879072880234432012-02-07T20:28:21.901-05:002012-02-07T20:28:21.901-05:00I read Stewart to apply a bit more broadly than ju...I read Stewart to apply a bit more broadly than just to nuisance determinations. I read it to hold that a city board's determination of "constitutional facts" relevant to a takings inquiry does not preclude de novo review by a district court of a takings claim. <br /><br />This could arise in variance appeals. Let's say the board of adjustment denies the variance. You appeal to the district court. The board's ruling is reviewed under the deferential substantial evidence standard. But . . . you may also bring a claim that the denial of the variance was a regulatory taking. That claim, under Stewart, would get a de novo hearing and the Board's finding no weight.<br /><br />This won't come up much because few variance denials are a colorable taking. Still, in the marginal case, it could be interesting.Chris Bradfordhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07898652874388575214noreply@blogger.com