U.S. Supreme Court,
Land Use,
Government
Sep. 25, 2024
Are local governments violating Supreme Court exaction precedents?
Despite Supreme Court rulings requiring a direct link between development projects and financial exactions, municipalities violate these principles by imposing unjust fees and misallocating funds.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7f273/7f2739015a5b17ee2ba607d0c8bd3766785b78c4" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3670f/3670f8442db9ba70c835e9646e6aa6dba8536daf" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/19c60/19c60d74928956523eacf69bb244d40f5ec0d384" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/56611/566113444c014dd58c283944c8b3945c1d4fd87b" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e2f79/e2f7926b0391db8ad406f1c8e51ef12face04549" alt=""
The United States Supreme Court is no stranger to cases involving fees
demanded by local government agencies in return for development permits. The
issue has been a regular presence at the Court recently. See Nollan v. Cal.
Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987); Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512
U.S. 374 (1994); Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District,
570 U.S. 595 (2013); Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 601 U.S. 267 (2024).
...
For only $95 a month (the price of 2 article purchases)
Receive unlimited article access and full access to our archives,
Daily Appellate Report, award winning columns, and our
Verdicts and Settlements.
Or
$795 for an entire year!
Or access this article for $45
(Purchase provides 7-day access to this article. Printing, posting or downloading is not allowed.)
Already a subscriber?
Sign In