Posts Tagged ‘land use and zoning’

Constitutional law roundup

Cato-intensive edition:

California’s sclerotic CEQA

As Gideon Kanner points out, you don’t need to be a property rights advocate to see the California Environmental Quality Act as a lawsuit-intensive mess (quoting Prof. Robert Freilich):

Many attorneys, planners, architects, engineers, scientists, developers, small businesses, business associations and governments in the state, and many environmentalists are agreed that CEQA needs major reform. Delays in the system are causing projects to suffer delays of 2 to 9 years to get EIRs approved, especially for (but not limited to) the failure to compare the project with all “feasible” alternatives, establish vague baseline analysis for existing mitigation, and the tricky determination as to which parts of regional, general and specific plan EIR findings can be incorporated, to eliminate duplication of effort and cost. The law is so confused on these points that it is a miracle that any EIR can survive its first round in the courts without a remand to do it over again. Complicating this result is the establishment of a specialized group of attorneys that initiate litigation at the drop of a hat, primarily because the statute authorizes attorney’s fees for any remand or reversal. Many community associations and no growth environmentalists use the EIR litigation process to delay and in many cases kill projects for little or no environmental substance.

Want to open a store? We choose your locations

“D.C. Mayor Vincent D. Gray delivered an ultimatum in a face-to-face meeting with Wal-Mart officials at a real estate convention Monday: If the chain wants to enter the District at all, it had better commit to opening at Skyland Shopping Center, the long-delayed redevelopment project in Gray’s home ward…. Gray indicated he would be willing to go so far as to nix the company’s requests for building permits on privately owned sites, even for neighborhoods where residents favored Wal-Mart’s opening.” [Washington Post, earlier]

Developer vs. critic of eminent domain, cont’d

As readers will recall, Texas developer H. Walker Royall sued journalist Carla Main and her publisher, Encounter Books, over Bulldozed, a critique of eminent domain which includes commentary critical of Royall’s dealings. (Note: Encounter Books is also the publisher of my forthcoming book, Schools for Misrule.) The case is now before a Dallas judge, and getting more publicity. (Dallas Observer, including brief and response by the parties, and more; David Rittgers at Cato). The WSJ’s William McGurn interviewed Royall and quotes him as saying that he objects (inter alia) to being portrayed as someone who “wants to silence anyone who wants to talk about [the controversy].” Why might anyone have gotten that impression of him? Well, one reason might be that, in addition to filing a suit demanding that Carla Main’s book be pulled off the market, and another suit against a local paper and its book reviewer over a review of the book — that one was settled — Royall also sued famed law professor Richard Epstein, who’d given a blurb to the book. (A judge dismissed Epstein from the case.)

From the Dallas Observer’s reporting:

John Kramer, with the Institute for Justice, says defamation suits against people speaking out against eminent domain are increasingly common. “We’ve actually seen an unfortunate trend across the country, in Tennessee, Missouri, and Washington State,” he says, over speech, a newspaper ad and a “multi-story permanent sign that said, ‘End eminent domain abuse.'”

More from IJ here. And Morgan Smith at Texas Tribune discusses efforts in the Texas legislature to secure more protection for free speech against aggressive lawsuits.

Court asked to force couple to use township water

The court ruled a while back that an elderly Claysburg, Pa.-area couple, Donald R. and Janet Burket, are legally obliged to hook into the Greenfield Township water system. “They have done that and they are paying the standard monthly rate for township water, but the Burkets contend that while they are hooked into the system, they should not be required to actually use the water for daily living purposes.” Janet Burket says the chlorine bothers her, and the township has gone back to court in search of a court order compelling them to use public water “for all human consumption in the residence,” on pain of contempt fines. [Altoona Mirror, editorial; mediator assigned]

September 28 roundup