Miscellaneous Citations - Nuisance - Inverse Condemnation
Partial Takings - Monetary Exactions -Spot Zoning

Inverse Condemnation Resources

Inverse Condemnation Self-help. Get Information at Castle Coalition web site. Devoted to providing information on Inverse Condemnation. Great resource

The Institute for Justice is a nonprofit, public interest law firm currently fighting battles across the nation against the taking of private properties by governments. These include cases in metropolitan New York; New London, Conn.; and Mesa, Ariz. IJ has already scored victories against the abuse of eminent domain in court and in the court of public opinion in Atlantic City, N.J.; Baltimore; Pittsburgh; and Canton, Miss.

Institute for Justice
1717 Pennsylvania Ave., NW,
Suite 200, Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel (202) 955-1300 Fax (202) 955-1329
Web Site: http://www.ij.org

Claremont Institute To recover the Founding principles in our political life means recovering a limited and accountable government that respects private property, and promotes stable  family life. Think Tank devoted to restoring private rights. Have been known to offer opinions on rights efforts, impressive list of its board members. A listing of other similar Think Tanks by state

Claremont Institute
Phone: (909) 621-6825
Fax: (909) 626-8724
937 West Foothill Boulevard, Suite E,
Claremont, CA 91711

The Law of Nuisance
The plaintiff is basically saying to the defendant, "Your action is interfering with my enjoyment of my property; therefore, you must stop acting in that manner."

An entity that has power to control a project is liable even if it does not actively participate in it.

An entity with the power to control a project need not actively participate in it to suffer liability. Proof that an entity signed a contract assuming responsibility for the project, shared a common governance with an active participant, or provided an exclusive revenue source for the project, can establish control.
Arreola v. Monterey County (2002) __Cal.App.4th__ [2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4319].

In the following example Caltrans failed to act in good-faith when they attempted to value the property at less than its best-use. The court also held them liable for legal fees.

Valuing the land as a mobile home park, Caltrans offered the Woodsons $1,400,000. A jury awarded the Woodsons $1,876,750 in just compensation which reflected the value of the land at its best use. Litigation expenses pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1250.410 were also awarded.

People ex rel. Department of Transportation v. Woodson (4th Dist., Div. 3, November 14, 2001) 93 Cal.App.4th 954 [113 Cal.Rptr.2d 559].
 

Saint Clair County, Illinois.  Gateway International Motorsports Corp. got the Southwestern Illinois Development Authority (SWIDA) to take land belonging to Irving Pielet, in order to expand the parking lot at its popular stock-car racing track.
A trial judge approved the taking in April 1998. But a panel of three justices for Illinois's Fifth District Appellate Court reversed his decision unanimously.
Despite the public benefits, including expansion of the tax base, the court ruled that "SWIDA exceeded  its constitutional authority." While the court noted that the term public use is flexible, there had to be limits. "Eminent domain is an intrusive power," the court said, "and the potential for its abuse is boundless."

How boundless? During the appellate court proceedings, one justice wondered aloud, "How many people's property could you take before you say, Well, we created a land-grabbing monster.?"

SWIDA's attorney, Harry Sterling, seemed unfazed. He replied, "The legislature, in an effort to foster economic development, has permitted exactly that."
 

The Takings Clause is applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause “was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U.S. 40, 49 (1960).

The California Constitution provides, "Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation ... has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner." (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19.)

Need help: The Castle Coalition is an effort by activists to take matters into their own hands. It was inspired by watching several communities defeat seemingly unstoppable projects to take homes and businesses to give to other private parties

-----------------------------------------------------

Partial Takings and Severance Damages

When less than total amount of property or rights therein is condemned, not only fair market value of part taken is compensable; decrease in value of the remainder, known as severance damage, is also recoverable.

Severance damages are theoretically distinct from inverse condemnation damages, though similar:

--Unless there is a direct condemnation of part of a unified parcel of land, damage to the remainder portion are not recoverable

--However, governmental activity on neighboring land which interferes with property rights on another parcel may be compensable through inverse condemnation

Examples of severance damages and related valuation issues:

-interference with access (cf when interference occurs as result of condemnation of neighboring land rather than portion of claimant's property: severance damages are not available but inverse condemnation damages may be)

A Federal District Court dismissed the claims as unripe under Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172 (1985)

The Court of Appeals remanded the case for trial. The case was tried to a jury, which found for the developer
 

Supreme Court of California  - No. S033642.

Ehrlich v. City of Culver City
Compensable Regulatory Taking

Although for the most part procedural in nature, the Act also embodies a statutory standard against which monetary exactions by local governments subject to its provisions are measured. Government Code section 66001 requires the local agency to determine "how there is a reasonable relationship" between the proposed use of a given exaction and both "the type of development project" and "the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed." (Gov. Code, § 66001, subd. (a)(3), (4), italics added.) In addition, the local agency must determine how there is a "reasonable relationship" between "the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed." (Id., § 66001, subd. (b), italics added.)

As Justice Scalia's opinion in Nollan, supra, 483 U.S. 825, makes clear, such a discretionary context presents an inherent and heightened risk that local government will manipulate the police power to impose conditions unrelated to legitimate land use regulatory ends, thereby avoiding what would otherwise be an obligation to pay just compensation. In such a context, the heightened Nollan-Dolan standard of scrutiny works to dispel such concerns by assuring a constitutionally sufficient link between ends and means. It is the imposition of land-use conditions in individual cases, authorized by a permit scheme which by its nature allows for both the discretionary deployment of the police power and an enhanced potential for its abuse, that constitutes the sine qua non for application of the intermediate standard of scrutiny formulated by the court in Nollan and Dolan.

In a particularly expressive rejoinder to Justice Brennan, the Nollan majority rejected the argument that the easement condition represented a reasonable "exchange" in return for the "benefit" of the development permit, declaring that "the right to build on one's own property-even though its exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting requirements- cannot remotely be described as a 'governmental benefit.' " (483 U.S. at pp. 833-834, fn. 2 [97 L.Ed.2d at p. 687].)
Ehrlich v. City of Culver City