SCOTUS: Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: Can governments use building permits to extort property owners?

[searcher]

Hope this hasn't been posted else where.

The Supreme Court’s Road to El Dorado​

The Supreme Court on Tuesday will hear what could be a landmark property-rights case (Sheetz v. County of El Dorado) with major economic implications. The question is simple: Can governments use building permits to extort property owners?

George Sheetz in 2016 applied for a permit from El Dorado County to build a small home in northern California near Lake Tahoe. The county board of supervisors conditioned the permit on a $23,420 “traffic impact mitigation” fee to cover the costs of expanding public roads to reduce congestion.

Mr. Sheetz sued in state court, arguing that the fee was excessive. Under the High Court’s Nollan (1987) and Dolan (1994) precedents, permit conditions and exactions must have an “essential nexus” and be “roughly proportional” to a development’s adverse impact. Local governments had conditioned building permits on property owners making some of their land available for public use. The Justices ruled that such exactions violated the Fifth Amendment, which bars government from taking property without just compensation.

More:

MSN

 

[searcher]

Court rules for property owner in building fee dispute - SCOTUSblog

California homeowner George Sheetz won a victory at the Supreme Court on Friday in his challenge to the constitutionality of a fee that he was required to pay the county to receive a permit to build his home. In a unanimous decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the justices agreed with She

www.scotusblog.com

 

[pmbug]

...
“Conditions on building permits are not exempt from scrutiny under Nolan and Dolan just because a legislative body imposed them,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett in a unanimous decision for the court. “In fact, special deference for legislative takings would have made little sense historically, because legislation was the conventional way that governments exercised their eminent domain power.” The Takings Clause, wrote Barrett, “prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

Sheetz’s attorney Paul Beard told reporters that “holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion.” The Court “put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.”

El Dorado County administrator Carla Hass countered that the ruling “answers only a narrow question on which the parties already agreed” and does not cancel county government’s ability to impose reasonable permitting conditions. A lower court will determine whether the fee charged Sheetz is proportionate to the impact caused by his single-family dwelling, which can’t amount to much. As the parties work it out people across the country might review some realities.

Government fees and taxes are essentially a distinction without difference, whether or not they proceed from a legislature or unelected administrative body. Taxpayers in all states might total up their local fees and taxes to assess the overall burden the ruling class imposes upon them. Compare that with the conditions the taxes and fees are supposed to fix, and the benefits local governments bestow on themselves.

With affordable housing in short supply, taxpayers might expect governments to relax taxes and fees that impact housing. ...

Supreme Court Hands the 'Pillage' People a Loss: The High Court takes umbrage at governments' excessive real estate fees. | K. Lloyd Billingsley

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of George Sheetz, who was charged a $23,000 fee to build on his own land in El Dorado County, California. The case is bound to affect governments, builders, and homebuyers across the state and nation. In 2016, Sheetz and his wife bought 10 acres near...

www.independent.org