Search

MANY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AND MUNICIPALITIES require a developer or property owner to absorb some of the costs or negative impacts of proposed development. These conditions attached to development approval, commonly [...]

EXACTIONS ARE CONDITIONS IMPOSED ON DEVELOPERS IN EXCHANGE FOR PERMISSION TO DEVELOP LAND, in order to aid local government in providing public infrastructure. Exactions come in many forms, including conveyances [...]

THIS PAST TERM THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT AGAIN HEARD arguments in a case in which they had rendered a decision at the conclusion of the 2013 Term--Horne v. USDA. [...]

"I'm going to make him an offer he can't [afford to] refuse" --The Godfather The Godfather, Francis Ford Coppola's 1972 blockbuster, is a timeless classic. (1) In addition to its [...]

B. Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine Applied to Exactions using the Just Compensation Clause Because exactions involve taking property and money, the Fifth Amendment's Just Compensation Clause is implicated. (229) The Just [...]

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (1) recently resolved, at least to some extent, a question hounding judges, land use lawyers, developers, and commentators since the Supreme Court [...]

This Article focuses on problems in implementing the U.S. Supreme Court's expansion in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District of its doctrine of unconstitutional conditions pertaining to land [...]

I. Introduction EXACTIONS ARE AN EVERYDAY REALITY IN LAND DEVELOPMENT. Exactions can take the form of land rights such as an easement, the payment of money, or the promise to [...]

THE LEGAL OPINIONS ANALYZING EXACTIONS (1) AND IMPACT FEES over the last eighteen months have had much to do with defining and limiting the boundaries of this "sub-branch" of takings [...]

COMMUNITY BENEFITS AGREEMENTS (CBAs), contractual agreements related to large development projects, are a relatively new tool in the realm of land use and urban planning. (1) They are the result [...]

I. Introduction THE LAWS GOVERNING EXACTIONS (1) and development impact fees continue to evolve as the nation's courts seek to balance the need for local governments to finance the infrastructure [...]

MUCH HAS BEEN MADE, BY BOTH COMMENTATORS AND COURTS, of the distinction between legislative and adjudicative land use exactions (1) used to determine whether an exaction must meet the "essential [...]

I. Introduction THE LAWS GOVERNING EXACTIONS (1) and development impact fees continue to evolve as the nation's courts seek to balance the need for local governments to finance the infrastructure [...]

I. Introduction THE CONTOURS OF THE LAWS GOVERNING EXACTIONS AND IMPACT FEES continue to evolve. In recent years, we have reviewed cases that explored local government's authority to impose exactions [...]

I. INTRODUCTION It is my great honor to deliver the Earl F. Nelson lecture for the year 2007. I have never met Mr. Nelson, but I have looked at the [...]

I. Introduction (1) SOME OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DECISIONS in the law of exactions and impact fees published over the last twelve months concern the limits of local governmental authority. [...]

ABSTRACT In the last several decades, there has been a marked shift in local government financing away from the use of general revenue taxes and toward nontax revenue-raising devices such [...]

Transferable development rights (TDRs) are a flexible market-based tool that allows land planners to overcome many of the shortcomings associated with traditional zoning practices. A TDR program works by designating a "sending" zone where development is restricted in exchange for the right to "transfer" that development to a "receiving" zone. Receiving zones are areas where development is permitted with the purchase of development rights (TDRs) from a sending zone. The value of TDRs is decided by the market. TDRs can have many positive land management impacts, but must be developed within the constitutional constraints of the Fifth Amendment's takings clause. This article argues that TDRs may be attacked under the Fifth Amendment in two ways. First, developers required to purchase TDRs may challenge them as unconstitutional exactions. Such challenges are rare but pose potentially serious threats to TDR programs, especially in the light of recent Supreme Court decisions limiting the government's power to impose exactions. This article constructs a framework under which land managers may avoid such challenges. Second, landowners who have development restricted in exchange for TDRs may challenge the restrictions as a regulatory taking. These challenges are more common and courts have used two very different types of analysis in dealing with them. One approach treats TDRs as an economic use of the land and factors their value into the takings calculus. A second approach performs the takings calculus independent of TDRs and only considers TDRs as a form of just compensation where a taking has occurred. This article argues that the latter approach is more convincing theoretically and will better protect environmental resources, maximize TDR values, and assure fair and equitable treatment of landowners. As a result, market participants will have increased confidence in TDR market integrity. Finally, this article briefly addresses the outdated nature of Supreme Court precedent on TDR constitutionality and suggests that the Court revisit the issue to clarify its approach and provide analysis that is more consistent with modern takings jurisprudence and land management practices.