Title:وضعیت برداشت پس از کونتز

توجه: این پخش اینترنتی واجد شرایط دریافت ۱٫۵ سانتی متر اعتبار آموزش از راه دور حقوق برای هر کسی است که بین ۱ ژانویه ۲۰۱۴ تا ۳۱ دسامبر ۲۰۱۴ آن را مشاهده کند. ارائه دهندگان: جان اچورریا، دوایت مریام، اسق.، FAICP توضیحات: ماه گذشته، دادگاه عالی ایالات متحده تصمیم خود را در مورد کونتز علیه منطقه مدیریت آب رودخانه سنت جانز صادر کرد. در این تصمیم پیچیده ۵-۴، دادگاه حکم داد که شرایط پولی مرتبط با مجوزهای استفاده از زمین اکنون مشمول آزمایش‌های موشکافانه‌تر از رابطه و تناسب خشن موجود در نولان و دولان است — و این آزمایش‌ها برای رد مجوزها نیز اعمال می‌شود. مورد اینجا بود این تصمیم مهم برای برنامه ریزان چه معنایی دارد؟ بسته به دیدگاه شما، این حکم می تواند به عنوان “تهدید کننده مرکز مقررات محلی استفاده از زمین” (مخالفت عدالت کاگان) یا به عنوان یک تغییر جزئی در قانون و عمل تلقی شود. به دلیل پیچیدگی و ابهام حکم دادگاه، کاملاً مشخص نیست. با دو نفر از متخصصان برجسته کشور در قانون استفاده از زمین همراه شوید زیرا آنها به شما کمک می کنند منظور کونتز را درک کنید.

قسمتي از متن فيلم: Hello everyone and welcome to this webcast my name is Ben frost it’s now one o’clock so we’ll begin our presentation shortly today is July 25th 2013 and we’ll have our presentation of the state of takings after Cootes given by John echevarría Dwight Merriam and our unadvertised special guests

Nancy Stroud for help during today’s webcast please feel free to type your questions into the chat box found in the webinar tool bar to the right of your screen or call one eight hundred three six three six three one seven for content questions please feel free to

Type those into the question box and we’ll be able to answer those at the end of the presentation during the question and answer session here’s a list of the sponsoring chapters divisions in universe universities I’d like to thank them all for making these webcasts as possible as well as the Florida chapter

For sponsoring today’s webcast as you can see we’ll have many upcoming webcasts to register for these please visit www.hsn.com Facebook you can search using planning webcast series to receive up-to-date information on the planning webcast series sponsored by this group to log in your cm credits for

Today’s webcast go to WWE an org slash cm select today’s date and the title of the webcast this is available for 1.5 CM law credits you can also search for the event using the event code two for two for one afterwards as we are recording today’s webcast it will be available on

Our youtube channel later today or tomorrow or sometime next week not sure exactly when you can just search on youtube using planning webcast a PDF of the PowerPoint will be made available upon request this is a particularly popular webcast and we have over 1400 people subscribed to attend

However the system capacity is only 1,000 that means that once we reach 1,000 attendees anyone in addition wishing to attend will be unable to so I encourage people and this is a system flaw for which I apologize but cannot change so I encourage people if you have multiple people in your office

Independently viewing this webinar encourage you to pool your resources and join on one screen and that will free up a slot for someone else and now I’d like to introduce our speakers for the day john Echevarria is a professor of law at Vermont law school Dwight Miriam partner

At Robinson and Cole and Nancy Stroud partner at Lewis Stroud and Deutsch thank you all for participating in this webcast and Nancy I want to want to start with you we’ve all talked we’ve heard so much about Koontz in the news and on blogs and and emails and listservs

And we know it’s about takings but we need some background on what what takings law is and what the background or the backdrop to Koontz is could you get us started please yes thank you and hello everybody I’m pleased to be part of this important presentation I do want

To give you some background to set the stage for the Coons analysis what is a taking the Constitution the Fifth Amendment of US Constitution provides that nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation and this protection is made applicable to the States and that’s to

Municipalities and counties and so forth through the Fourteenth Amendment well the government may take private property if it pays just compensation and if it’s for public use that’s another way to say what you see on your screen and commonly historically and through today government can condemn property using its sovereign power of

Eminent domain to provide facilities such as highways flood claims and so forth and that’s called the condemnation power but the type that we’re talking about today the taking we’re talking about today is often called the inverse condemnation power where the government uses its regulatory power to affect private property and the private

Property owner claims that effectively the government has condemned his property and should pay him compensation go to the next screen and will see that there are many different kinds of inverse taking claims there is first where there is it a direct appropriation or permanent physical occupation that’s created by regulation and that’s

Considered a per se taking the most common kind of example might be where government has created flooding on one’s property and that’s an invasion on the property for which it needs to pay compensation to the landowner but most inverse condemnation claims are about regulations that reduce value or even

Totally deny value you might remember a case from South Carolina several years ago where the South Carolina coastal regulations made it impossible for a beachfront owner to build on his property and the US Supreme Court found that that was a total denial of all values of per se taking most kinds of

Cases that are found in court on inverse condemnation claims though are reviewed under a case called Penn Central that came out of US Supreme Court in 1978 where there are substantial restrictions on the proper use but not all of the value of the property is is gone and the court uses a

Multi-factor analysis case-by-case to determine whether or not there’s enough of a restriction on property use that the government should pay compensation and then we have the Third Kind and that’s the kind that we’re talking about today it’s a kind of inverse taking that came out of a couple of cases called

Nolan and Dolan and now involve the Coons case and thank you to Dwight for providing the photos that you see here the one on the screen is of the Nolan property on the beachfront in California and the Nolan’s wanted to tear down a an old bungalow on the beach and put up a

Nice modern three-story that three-bedroom beachfront house and they needed a permit from the California Coastal Commission the Commission granted them the permit but as a condition to the permit required that they grant the property owners grant an easement for public access along the beach so that persons could travel to

The park that was on one side and other public access areas on the other side and out of this case came an important test the Nolan test that we’ll get to in a couple slides later let’s go to the Dolan case though which is on your next slide that

Shows the property involved in this case this came out of Washington State we’re the Dolans owned a plumbing and electrical supply store and wanted to build a bigger store had to get permits to do so and as a condition to the permit the city required that they dedicate an easement for pedestrian and

Bicycle access and also for flood way protection the second test came out of that that case so here are the two tests for an exaction under Nollan and Dolan let’s go to the next slide in fact the slide next to that after that would be better the Supreme Court

In this case is decided that in order for a an exaction a condition to a permit to be considered not a taking the exaction must meet to test what is called the essential Nexus test of Nolen excuse me yes Nolen and the rough proportionality test out of Dolan and if it didn’t meet

Both of these tests a permit exaction is a taking so next slide please under Nolen the essential Nexus test is that the permit condition must serve the same public police power purpose as a refusal to the issue the to issue the permit and if that permit condition does

Not serve the same police power purpose then the permit will be considered a taking the essential Nexus test requires that the permit condition furthered the end advance as a justification for the prohibition and when there is no essential nexus between what the condition is to do and what the public purpose is

Then there is a taking under the Dolan test next slide the second part of the two two-part test requires the court to determine whether the degree of the exaction that’s demanded by the permit condition there’s a reasonable relationship to the projected impact of the proposed development and this

Relationship is has been coined in a term that is rough proportionality that the the condition must be roughly proportional to the impact of the development roughly proportional doesn’t mean that there has to be a precise mathematical calculation but in an individual determination the condition the required dedication has to be

Related roughly proportionately to the nature and extent of the impact of the proposed development now that the Dolan case not only created this roughly proportional test but it did something also very important to change the nature of the analysis and that is go to the next slide please

That the burden of proving whether there is rough proportionality is on the government normally if there is a challenge the property of our challenges the permit condition the property owner would be required to prove that there was a taking but now under the Noland Dolan cases the burden of proof is on

The public what were some of the key issues that the court struggled with after Nolan and Dolan were decided well one issue was whether exactions that were imposed through general legislation through statute or by rules rather than through the individualized determination the ad-hoc proceedings also had to be

Subject to Nollan and Dolan those kinds of exactions might be a AC in lieu of the land that would otherwise be required to be dedicated and that leads to the other key issue which is do cash payments or monetary exactions such as impact fees do they fall under the Nolan

Dolan rubric and lastly many government’s struggled with what exactly do you need in terms of proof and analysis to defend an exaction under the Nolan Dolan standards what how do you determine whether something is roughly proportional well the lower courts had been working on these issues for many

Years almost 20 years since Dolan was decided and it was somewhat of a surprise I think when this US Supreme Court decided to take the Koons case and look at some of these issues again all right thanks so much Nancy so now we were set up for for Koontz and

I want to hand it over to John to tell us what happened here great thank you very much it’s going to be with you all I’m you go to the next slide this is a map of the site the Koontz property is in Florida northeastern Florida Easter

Easter Orlando I think this little map because you’re pretty good sense issues and the land in question the Coons property is the is the vertical rectangle below State Road 50 the darker areas are state designated wetlands the lighter areas the Coons property are designated uplands as I’ll explain in a

Moment the northern portion of the rectangle was taken by a highway authority through an eminent domain proceeding which is why this rectangle doesn’t abut the road and there’s a little sliver of land between the road and the Koontz property the but as you can see there was an access way provided

To what remained of the Coons property and the property that the Koontz is sought to develop was essentially the area at the top of his rectangle above the yellowish line which represents a transmission line up to almost to State Road 50 the proposal was to convert that into her small commercial slopping

Center and gooses offer was to place lands below the transmission line in a under conservation easement by a way of mitigation so with that orientation let’s go to a few more slides here are the dramatis personae quite comes junior and coy cone senior who’s now deceased next slide basic chronology the Koontz purchased

The property in 1972 about 15 acres and all for about $95,000 15 years later as I mentioned the transportation agency condemned a very small portion of the property points that’s 7 acres and in exchange for the taking paid the Koontz is over $400,000 which represented compensation for the land taken as well

As severance damages presumably it was based at least in part on the fact that most of what was left to them after this taking consisted of wetlands which were going to be hard to develop in 1980 for winces filed an application for permits to develop 3.7 acre 3.7 acres

The area above the transmission line of which 3.4 acres was wetlands and then proposed and in order to construct a small commercial shopping center and as I indicated the Koons proposed to address the mitigation requirements and the district’s basic standard that there be no adverse environmental impacts by

Placing the remainder of the property and their conservation easement next slide be here’s a submitted by Koontz describing what they were proposing to provide next slide the district rejected that offer on the grounds that it didn’t meet the guidelines for mitigation established across the district when wetlands were being destroyed in in the

District came back and suggested the coolants that they were various ways in which they could get to guess one of them being to reduce the size the development and then accepting a conservation easement on the rest of the property alternatively to do the larger project that Koons proposed but with

Koons investing some time money and effort and doing some wetlands rehabilitation at some sites within the basin several miles away from the site on district owned property Koontz rejected those additional options and in response to rejection of those options the district denied the application he then went to court in Florida state

Court system claiming a taking there was a lot of litigation over whether or not the claim was right but ultimately the trial court concluded that there had been a taking and awarded compensation the next slide the court the district facing major takings liability and after reviewing permit and making areas

Assessment of the application based on the facts as they then existed decided to grant Kunz the permit he requested subject to the mitigation he offered Koontz then turned around and sold the property and with the permits from a company called Florida LLC for 1.2 million I happened to notice on

Google pays to go to Florida LLC has recently filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy now there in any event they never proceeded with a development of the site so with a permit issued the only issue remaining in the case was whether or not the district was liable for compensation

For a temporary taking of the property and the case went up through the appellate process on that issue in 2009 the Florida Court of Appeals affirmed in a two-to-one decision that there had been a taking and then in 2011 and went to the Florida Supreme Court which

Reversed on two grounds one they said this case contrary to the argument but that’s of it to no one and Dolan because of Noland and Dolan the permit was issued and a condition was attached to the permit here by contrast a permit was denied and therefore no one and all

Would not fly and then secondly the court said even if in this scenario is subject to Nollan and Dolan they don’t apply in this case for the additional reason that the obligation imposed on the kosis was to expend money to do wetlands rehabilitation not to make a dedication of an interest if real

Property so then go to the next slide so the two issues that were teed up for review in the US Supreme Court or these whether the knowable and standards apply when the government denies development application because the applicant is refused to accede to a government demand that the applicant comply of the

Requirement that would trigger Nolen though it if it were made a condition the project approach and the second issue is whether the no no stairs apply to so-called cherry exactions permit conditions requiring a permit to use to pay money or expend money and the courts answer to

Both of these questions was yes and let me get into some detail about the courts analysis next slide okay on the first issue all of the justices agreed that Nolan and Dolan applies equally to the situation where a permit is issued subject to an addition or wear and to

The situation where a permit is denied because an applicant accept a proposed condition they court described the distinction isn’t being between a condition subsequent and a condition preceding and that they were both of you to know an adult significantly the one of the the court said that when there is

A permit denial and no condition is imposed well then the exaction that’s at issue obviously hasn’t been taken when when the no one’s got a permit and the and the city of tigar demanded the bike path while the wait there could be said to have been taken when a permit is

Denied because of an exaction but with no exaction actually posed that obviously that they there there’s no area has been taken within the meaning of the law so one of the mysteries after the oral argument was how this how in the world could the Supreme Court applied knowing and know under the

Situation where there’s a permit denial because there was no no taking involved as Justice Scalia famously remarked or in the old argument and the Supreme Court has confirmed that when a permit is denied and no condition is attached there is no taking but nonetheless the court has said there is something called

A Nolan dull and unconstitutional conditions of violations and what that is raises all sorts of abstruse questions but let’s just say it’s a novel judicial creation in deciding this issue the majority assumed for the sake of argument that there actually had been a demand in this case

In other words the district said we will issue the permit if you grant thus these agree to do perform these conditions that we’ve outlined but are the arguments by the district and one of the points highlighted with what the dissent was there arguably wasn’t any demand here because there were a variety of

Suggestions thrown out it was all very fluid it was all quite uncertain as to what the district needed or wanted but the Supreme Court said what we’re not deciding whether the demands here were sufficiently specific in concrete to actually trigger our new test the courts below assumed there’d been a demand that

The demand led to a denial and we’re deciding when does the demand at least or denial Nolan and Dolan apply dissenters by contrast said we do we agree there has to be a demand but there was no – there were merely a set of suggestions that were made a variety of options

Open-ended set of options and when the disc when the district wasn’t able to persuade in coops who accept any of those they proceeded to deny the project application based unacceptable effects so there’s an agreement on the part of John the dissent that Nolan and don’t apply when there’s a demand there was a

Disagreement in this case between the two as to whether there was in fact a demand in this case some next slide so the court rolled on the second issue in a short division that Nolan and Dolan are not limited to exactions involving interests and real property but also

Apply to monetary exactions the the hurdle the majority had to get over to reach that decision was unless the eastern enterprises case or our five justice majority of the court not speaking to an opinion for the corporate representing majority of the court said that a government mandate to pay money

To the governor of third parties might or might not be illegal or unconstitutional but that doesn’t fall within the scope of the takings Clause so the question is how could a monetary exactions applied to as a permanent condition constitute a a taking and the court said well generally speaking we

Assume that I look man dates to pay money or still outside scope the takings Clause but the takings Clause does apply to government orders directly on a particular piece of property to make a monetary payment in other words because the Koontz is owned a piece of real

Estate in Florida and the condition was attached to them as owners of the real property then the general rule of eastern enterprises doesn’t apply and a condition mandating payment of money can be subject to Nollan and Dolan the dissent and I say this in part because the dissent largely bought the arguments

That I presented on behalf of the National Governors Association that Eclipse said the ruling was wrong that it was inconsistent with logic of Knowles and Dolan that I will extend the takings clause into the very heart of local land use regulation and service delivery and logically converse all real

Property taxes that take because if you apply the test one when step up on this slide whether or not the government has issued an order directing the owner of a particular piece of property to make a monetary payment well that real property taxes fit that test to a tee so it’s

Pretty hard conceptually to figure out how a monetary exactions can fit with a no no a theory that that kind of obligation to pay money is taking of the money and at the same time avoid the conclusion that real property taxes are taken the the majority went out of its

Way to say property taxes are not takings and we don’t mean to imply that they are but I think the makes a powerful point that it’s hard to understand why property taxes are not taking this if monetary exactions are taking under the test as articulated in

This opinion so let’s go to the next slide so there are two basic kind of challenges facing regulators and planners after Kuntz one is determining what types of policies and regulatory actions do and do not trigger application of the nolan and own standards and the second is if no one in

Doe and do apply or some court determines four or five years after the fact that they will apply how do you meet the nolan and Dolan standards next slide before I turn to negative I want to just highlight the what I call the promising snippets from the court’s

Opinion in several points in the opinion the court went out of its way to recognize that development can impose costs on local communities and that the courts precedents permit local communities to recover those costs through dedications of property or other kinds of offsets so that the court has

Not argued with the principle that exactions can be required indeed it’s endorsed the principle but what it has done is erected new procedural hurdles as substant hurdles to the application of enforcement of exactions and we’ll have to see whether these obstacles make it hard to fulfill the promise of these

Snippets or not so let’s turn to the next slide and applying Kuntz to permit denials I think you have to start by recognizing that when Herrmann has denied an application and said we’re not going to accept this application if there is then litigation over whether or not the reason the government denied the

Permit was because a condition that was discussed which the government sought to impose but the developer didn’t agree to it’s going to be very hard years after the fact for the government to be able to justify support its denial by engaging in this kind of artificial exercise of

Justifying the condition that it never did impose at all it decided against imposing and which may not be very well may never have been very well spelled out the conditions were relatively well spelled out in the Coons case but query wouldn’t but that’s going to be true in

A lot of cases I think one of the one of my criticisms of the opinion is it said something awful artificial litigation costs a major issue going forward is whether or not mere suggestions by the government about what kinds of exactions would be appropriate will trigger Nolan

And Dolan the majority suggests as I said they’ve indicated that there was a demand in this case citing the case on the assumption that there was a demand but they leave over the question of whether or not a condition or demand might be so non-current concrete and nonspecific that doesn’t qualify as an

Actual demand it may be that if the government generally identifies concerns impacts of development that it seeks to have mitigated but without specifying how it wants the developer to do that leaving it to the developer to come forward that it can avoid the effect it can afford the coud snowland Dolan tests

The majority pretty clearly indicates that simply by offering the developer a variety of options but demanding that they do something that the community will not avoid the effect of Nolan and Dolan okay let’s go to the next one the so so the question is what is the

Consequence of this new ruling and as justice Elena Kagan famously observed would be because the decision is so unclear and it’s so ambiguous what step by municipality in my way of proffering or off some kind of suggested condition well trigger Nolan and Dolan that communities may be loath to say

Anything very specific and they may prefer to simply deny applications outright rather than figure out what continues would make sense it appears even after Kuntz that the community always has the option to deny an application the in the city of Monterey case the US Supreme Court

Clearly said that Nolan and Dolan do not apply to permit denials if a community dies to deny a permit based on impacts Nolan and Dolan don’t apply query how the courts will deal with a situation where there’s been there’s been plenty Eric conversations about possible conditions they have not come to

Fruition and the community then says well we’re gonna go up an up or down decision on this we’re not going to pursue the conditioning route we’ll have regard that as a failed exaction case only view that if the city of Monterey denial based on unacceptable impacts for

A case next slide one of the questions is one of the burdens that this decision imposes on community is the need to do a better documentation of the conditions they’re considering imposing if a community wants to go that route why not one way of avoiding Cuenca simply does

Not negotiate but if the community wants to negotiate is going to happen it’s going to need a lot more information a lot more analysis the cost of that analysis can probably be passed off on to developers in my own view communities ought to be to a careful job and making

Sure that they control the substance of that monetary of that technical analysis let’s go to monetary exactions and I’ll talk about that briefly and we wrap up the extension of Nolan dough into monetary exactions represents a significant expansion of Nolan Dolan as coin Cootes and it gives government they give his

Good developers a bigger stake dealing with developers the major legal issue going forward is whether or not and Dolan and and going supply to fees and other exaction imposed legislation there’s a lot of precedent out there that say that Nolan and Dolan don’t apply to legislation there’s like there’s president Authority contrary and

The majority and Coons very pointedly doesn’t address that next slide whether or not I raise the question of whether or not legislative rules or equivalent legislative rules an issue that’s likely be hotly litigated in practice it’s turned out to be somewhat difficult to distinguish between legislatively impose fees and I ad hoc

Fees what happens example when a community is applying a legislative formula but the application of the formula involves some modest amount of discretion next slide three more slides here the the once you get past all these debates and questions about whether or not Noland Dolan applies question is how to

Meet the Noland and Dolan tests in other words how to meet the essential nexus test on how to meet the rough proportionality test the the trial court ruled that the conditions in this case didn’t be no on a knoll on that issue before any of the appellate courts so

Cool doesn’t only provide us any guidance on it unfortunately most of the litigation that’s out there had to do with whether or not Nolan and don’t apply not about how to apply it looking and I spent a good part of this week looking at the relatively few Appellate Court precedents applying the essential

Nexus to proportionality test and I’d say the results are mixed sometimes governments satisfy the test sometimes they don’t is it is applied rigorously I don’t think it’s fair to say it’s strict in theory and fatal in fact but it’s strict in theory and frequently fatal so let me go to the next floor

The obvious tension between combs because it applies the strict standard and places the burden on the government justify its decisions it’s a considerable tension with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in lingo in which the Supreme Court repudiated a substantially advanced test and emphasized the importance of judicial deference to elected legislators and

Their appointed personnel clearly the philosophy of Lingle which was embraced unanimously in 2005 is in considerable tension with a coach decision final fine this is my my take home for planners and regulators development conditions land dedications and fees should be established whenever possible through general legislation or rules to take

Advantage of the majority rule today among the lower courts that exactions imposed from general legislation or general rules are not subject to this strict scrutiny the government’s might be well advised to justify even legislative and administrative rules as well as they can so that they would survive sort of review under Noland

Dolan but I think that would be a fallback stop argument in the context of ad hoc administrative proceedings communities should avoid making demands if they make demands then they trigger Koontz and Nolan and Dolan apparently presumably communities would be on safer ground if they simply say we’re willing

To entertain any offers exactions that you developer wish to present to us but we have no ideas I think that’s you know kind of an idiotic process but it’s an idiot process constructed by the Supreme Court to the extent the community negotiates over conditions it’s going to have to perform detailed fact-finding

And detailed analysis it has measure the project impacts and make a careful analytic assessment of how the impacts relate to the conditions that’s going to be expensive it’s going to be time-consuming and as I say I think communities should be entitled have developers pay for all those analytic

Costs again that may be versum that may not be what the development community intended but that is the situation the Supreme Court presented us with and finally if negotiations fail or set up conditions do not seem to be in the cards then communities need to in order to avoid

Application of Noland and Dolan Coons have to back up and evaluate the application as presented and decide based on the existing criteria or whether or not it’s possible to accept the application or deny the application if they if the application is denied solely based on the acceptable effects

Of the development rather than on any failed negotiations over conditions I think humanity should be able to defend their decisions based on Penn Central Hospital Lucas and not need to go through the rigors of the Nolan and Dolan house and I will stop there okay thanks so much Sean you know I think

Most planners don’t really stop and analyze the the opinions of courts they ask well what now all right Dwight tell us what now and Nancy if you could be ready to jump in here as I go along because you’re a practitioner and full-time practice as I am but you

Represent mostly governments my practice in the last 35 years has been about 60 percent developer and 30 percent government and a 10 percent with neighborhood an advocacy group so I guess I’ve seen it from all perspectives and I’m not that concerned about this decision I think there are lots of

Things we can do and we’re already doing that are going to help us avoid liability I’ve had several planners email me already and tell me that you know I don’t think things are gonna be much different we’re already pretty careful about our exactions and I think after

First English and Nancy you know we were all pretty concerned after first English and John you might weigh in here too but I didn’t see that there was a large change after that what do you think the 1987 decision probably not although Nolan and Dolan I think created a huge change or maybe

It just was at the same time there was a large focus on impact fees a growing use of impact fees and so I think people got very serious about making sure that monetary exactions you know were properly calibrated and really wanted to do impact fees instead of the kind of

Negotiation that had occurred earlier well there’s still haven’t been that many Nolan and Golan decisions but let’s look at this next slide here number forty I think we’re going to see more pre-application meetings and the reason I’ve always liked to do them whether I’m representing a developer or a government

Or a neighborhood group because I think it allows us to scope the project get people going in the right direction before they invest a lot of time effort expense and psychic energy in a particular form of development I don’t know Nancy do you do you do a

Lot of pre application meetings in your practice I do and a lot of it is because developers like them it helps them hone in on the issues and it helps the planners you know direct them to what needs to be done I find them in large and small cities I

Just was looking at some of these recently Pittsburgh you can Google your way into these but Pittsburgh Pennsylvania has a very nice questionnaire that they do they they want him for me for the participants in the applicants about what the zoning district requires what the development review process will

Be like the schedule what the local community groups are and as I said they have a really nice pre application submission form a little different place that you know better than most of us Nancy is Lee County Florida 631 thousand people over 1200 square miles and I

Think the important thing when you look at their site and what they do and the answer you probably have seen this it says right in the request for pre-application meeting and I think this is a key point for our planners with us today quote the results of an informal

Meeting are not binding on the developer / applicant , oh there’s somebody calling in right now with the takings case probably the development services / zoning staff or the county in other words there’s a disclaimer right in the application and I think if we’re going to we should use free application

Meetings I think we would a little a little more detailed statement than that regarding the materials that are submitted being in the public domain and just saying in a stronger way that neither side or none of the three sides if the neighborhood groups are involved

– are going to be bound by that at all but Dwight do you think that that’s really going to happen there there is this concern about whether suggestions for mitigation are really demands and certainly the way that the court you know painted the KU decision with these very typical negotiations that you have

That start at pre-application meetings let’s face it but we’re considered demanding overreaching behavior on the part of the government well we’re going to get to answer that question and a little bit here but I think part of the answer is that before you have an application you’re not really because you don’t have

An application pending you don’t have the same rights that you have what you have an application in force but I do think and we’re going to address the issue of getting people ready for pre-application meetings and avoiding a misstep I found another another community the just outside of Phoenix in Maricopa

County a good year Arizona hello everybody from Arizona you know good year founded by guess who Paul Littlefield of good year 1917 Goodyear Tire and they have the same thing that they quote the pre-application process does not constitute a formal review of an application or a final determination

Of standards and conditions of approval cannot be made until a formal application is submitted for review they require a pre-application meeting in every instance a little town down your way Nancy I don’t know the town you make you probably do debary Florida same sort of thing pre-application meeting and so

Forth so in a very small place of black diamond Washington at King County 4200 people just 5.9 square miles and they have a pre application process so I’ll be interested to hear from our listeners what they’re doing on that front let’s go to the next slide this is a little

Fun and hey Dwight we like we’ve been we have a couple of requests for you to speak louder okay we speak louder yes I’ll be happy to do that is that better I think okay well role playing and as I said to you before the call Ben we’ve

Seen this done well in New Hampshire if you just will Google Planning Board and zba role play you’ll get an example of what’s apparently done every year at a conference in New Hampshire regarding acting out the roles of what people are going to do and I think that to avoid

Some missteps we need to spend time with our board members and commissioners in going through some hypothetical scenarios about pre-application meetings what’s appropriate to say on the record in terms of negotiations I mean I really don’t think we should walk away from negotiating with applicants and with the

Neighbors and part of the process but it’s not usual for us to do role-playing but I do find it’s pretty useful and helpful the answer your Ben you’ve got any comments on that before we go on well I just want to suggest that when people are considering considering doing

Role-playing and and writing a script they plan to embed problem issues so that the audience that is watching and participating in this this roleplay exercise can work to identify them and one of them we did this both for zoning boards and and for planning boards one of them we call planning boards behaving

Badly and threw so much stuff in there that it was just it was quite overwhelming they the number of bad things that we had seen planning boards do yet they were well up to that point getting away with it dancing I haven’t been involved in role-playing but it

Does sound like a a very useful exercise good practice you know for figuring out what the issues might be we do spend some considerable time in that area with boards and commissions in our training for defending against religious claims because there’s a lot of ways to get

Into trouble in the discussions you have on the record and under the religious land use and institutionalized persons act we think we can find lots of ways to reduce liability by sensitizing people to what the issues are and I think we have to do that here we have to spend

Some time with our commissioners and our board members telling them what the third rail issues are if you will let’s go to the next slide Ben many of you out there with us today have read writings by our friend Jim Nicholas good friend of Nancy’s and mine among many many people wonderful

Economist and the point that he makes when he talks about in hack fees is that in-kind exactions are lumpy so I think we’re going to see more impact fees more impact fees after coats because for example in this little illustration if you want to if a developer comes along and is causing a

۲۵% increase in traffic that requires a new turning lane but the new turning lane is actually adding much more capacity than what that developer is creating then there must be a more precise way to do it and the more precise way than buying a whole lane

Which is lumpy is to do impact fees there’s a very nice report that you can find called impact fees and housing affordability which Jim was and others were involved in and so it and among the things that that they say in there that are lumpy in terms of in-kind exactions

And where I think we’re going to be moving more towards towards impact fees are water wastewater stormwater parks because they only come in a certain size like water treatment systems do libraries fire departments and facilities police and as I mentioned highways and of course schools colleges

And transit so I think there’s going to be a tendency towards impact fees I don’t know John do you have a view on that or Nancy well I think my sense is there has been a move towards exaction fees in response to Nolan and goin on the assumption that exaction fees were

Not subject to Nolan dalla Dean kind exactions were and on the theory that if you were demanding money you had your your in a safe harbor area and now that safe harbor has has disappeared so I don’t think I think there has been a move towards monetary exactions I’m not

Sure that Koontz is going to accelerate it Nancy well I think there will be more impact he’s not just because of tunes but because of capital facility needs I think the problem for local governments so there are often the kind of negotiations that go on prior to Coons for

Contributions to you know government activities that are not always easily translated into impacting mein art in public places you know that’s a fairly common kind of program that local governments have it can if if it was subject to a roughly proportion you know proportional test would it survive

Probably not in most places and there are other examples where I think local governments are going to have to start looking a lot more carefully at those kinds of programs and requests from from developers well good that you should make that point Nancy because go to the next slide I’ve got your answer

Just tax people I mean we have taxes are immune from Koontz and Nolan and Dolan and you know if there’s a question about and I think we really haven’t got into the to the issue of whether the concept of general welfare under the police power somehow will support things that

Are hard to do Nexus and rough proportionality with like public art but you know we can always just increase taxes and go out and spend the money if we’re uncertain whether we’re going to be able to meet the know Landon Dolan Nexus and rough proportionality test so

Don’t forget that next slide special tax districts all right let’s see if somebody can win a prize today anybody want to guess according to the 2012 US census how many special tax districts special districts we have in this country already not including school districts now to give you a little hint about how

Big that number maybe I’ve been recently reading a report from earlier this year about Texas Texas now has 1740 special-purpose districts levying property taxes or sales taxes compared to eleven hundred and fifty-eight in 1992 there community college districts Water District’s Crime Control and Prevention districts which are there are

Many of those and even mosquito control districts so if they got seventeen hundred Texas you know how many there are in the country multi we have some guesses here – how about two hundred and thirty four thousand we’ll get there and maybe after coots will see that the next

Few years got are just over fifty thousand including school districts thirty-seven thousand two hundred and three special-purpose districts in the country according to the US census so you know one of the ways out of Coons and and and away from using general revenues and boosting everybody’s taxes including people across the other side

Of the municipality that are getting going to get no benefit from a particular capital improvement is to overlay the area with a special district and I’ve given you on the slide here one from the Denver area but there are so many good examples all over the country this one the scientific and cultural

Facilities district the voter created special tax district charges one penny on $10 retail sales and a use tax to over 300 scientific and cultural organizations that are supported in the Denver area and it has its board of directors of the like so let’s let’s take a look at something else we can do

Post Coons next slide please what other courts say that fees are are not gonna be within the reach well maybe Nancy yeah take a look at this slide I know you are this just happens to be an excerpt from Santa Clara California I looked all around the country to get a

Sense of what if people are doing and of course everybody’s got fees that Perrysburg Ohio s got a nice schedule of fees for all kinds of site plan applications just like so many other people do even a fee for an accessory use utility shed $20 for the application

Fee helps to cover some of the costs of administering the permit process and I know the an see if Florida’s got lots of impact fees but they also have probably have lots of fees for applications right just like yes like like most states I imagine but I I think justice Kagan’s

Dissent is is very telling because it’s possible that those fees also have to meet this this test now that maybe special assessments have to meet the test the the opinion of the majority is not really very clear about what kind of monetary payments that are connected to

Property will be exempt from from Koons they say that property taxes are exempt but property taxes are just one type of monetary see John any comment on fees before I go on here fooful investing area for a great deal of litigation as Nancy we hope not yet and you know on

That point about litigation post Koontz we all know that what developers want are two things certainty and speed and in representing developers every one case we were doing a mall and the municipality said we want you to fix up this Brook and we said but we’re impacting the brook and they said well

We think you are and I said well we’re not and I told the client look I can win this case but it’ll take us ten years and of course I knew what the answer was gonna be what are you crazy we got to build a small and we paid 3.3 million

Dollars to fix up a water course that was not impacted by the development fact the the flows were reduced by the particular expansion of the existing retail facility why would a developer do that because they could make more money in the long run by getting along doing

What needs to be done and and going their way it’s only when things get really bad that I think we see people where they they they are suing for some other reasons that we tend to end up in litigation look at how long coy Koontz litigation took him and and and now he’s

Not even with us his son has stepped in but look on this slide before we go into the next one over in the lower the right hand side you get into very fine print go go to city of Santa Clara’s web site take a look at it directly but this is

What this means Nancy’s issue are we gonna have to show Nexus and and rough proportionality they actually have computed the full cost of what some of these permits cost so the full cost of a variance for a single-family home they’ve computed to be almost fifty eight hundred dollars but they’re

Charging seven hundred and thirty so I think we need to get out ahead of this and figure out what our actual costs are and when we set fees we may as well go ahead and set them at or below what we’re able to show as as costs at least

From the government side by the way on the use of fees I find how much how many people how many municipalities in the country are using fees to subsidize capital improvements and some are and I found in south hadley massimo other places their regular fee schedule that

Probably ends up using getting used for some capital improvements that are beneficial to others so discretionary processes let’s go on to the next one because we want to get to the questions and I don’t know about five or six minutes plan development districts and what I’m talking about here is our type of

Regulation with a floating zone in other words it’s Matt it’s it’s it’s spelled out in the regulations but the district is not mapped and it descends and applies to a property when certain criteria are met like land area access to utilities transportation infrastructure and so forth that process

Of having the floating zone descendent apply is a purely legislative process which is what you heard John and Nancy both say at various points are important to consider in trying to avoid liability developers like it because it gives them a lot of flexibility and governments like it without before they spend a lot

Of money because they submit a conceptual site plan along with the rezoning request to have the floating zone descend and apply so it’s a legislative process in which people know generally what the end results going to be and before they spend a lot of money on detailed engineering and architecture

I think planned development districts of that type special development districts are going to be outside the reach of codes maybe we have yet to see that happen but I think it’s outside the reach there’s one case if you want to go try to take a look at it that that

Discusses this issue called Hampton Bays connections against Duffy it’s a New York case in the Eastern District of New York 2001 in the federal court and in that case they were dealing with a special development district and they had a substantive due process claim is the requirements reasonably related to

Permissible governmental objective and the court says that the planned development district is which is discretionary with the town it may be approved it doesn’t have to be there’s an underlying permitted use already that it there is no property interest in the special development district or planned development just

Approval you can’t have a taking if there isn’t property and if there’s no property interest in the approval under a planned development district then you’re not going to have a taking but you know there’s a win-win situation the planned development district developers like governments like because it immunizes them from potential liability

As I said developers like it because it’s expeditious it’s certain it gets some vested rights in the conceptual site plan once the legislation is done and it opens a dialogue for discussion Nancy you’ve done a lot of work with special development districts planned of all the districts comments on any of

That well they’re terrific and I agree with you and of course they’re most used where you have vacant property I think it’s or maybe with redevelopment where you can tear down property so it isn’t going to be applicable in every situation especially if you’re trying to do some infill or other types of

Development and already build out communities but where you can do them I agree I think it will help to insulate you from the Koons problem now a couple last points and and then we want to open it up to questions the next slide on planned development district exactions

Take a look at what College Station Texas has done they’ve got some nice provisions and the one thing that I find really interesting and was fun to see out there because I had thought this was a good idea and indeed I’ve never had an original thought in my entire life

Somebody’s already done it before and the next slide Lexington Kentucky has done this and they have an exaction appeals committee I love this this is the place to resolve these controversies about whether the exactions meet Nexus and rough proportionality test you know you don’t want to go to court it’s too expensive

It’s too uncertain but develop a appellate process at the local level where somebody who doesn’t like the exaction has a forum in which to challenge it and possibly get some relief I think that can be very helpful last last one here development agreements development agreements you can’t do them

In every state you can do them in many states but not all some are done by enabling legislation some are done through common law that is judge-made law but development agreements are pure bilateral open negotiation no property interest in the development agreement itself no particular right to a development agreement I think they’re

Totally outside cones like many of these other techniques I don’t think we have to worry about them and again I think there’s a win-win-win here I think that development agreements allow that type of bilateral negotiation between the developer the municipality and the constituent interest groups including the neighbors I don’t know the answer

I’ve done a few they’re not common where most of my practice is but I was pleased to work on the one for Kiowa Resort Aquila Island in South Carolina where most interestingly Bob Freilich was on the other side of that negotiation and it worked out it worked out really quite

Well for everybody what do you think about development agreements is a partial solution to some of these issues I think they’re they’re good in Florida of course we have statutory authorization for them and developers like them because at least in Florida when you have an agreement you’re vested

With your property it takes care of longer-term phased projects very nicely for the developer so that he can have some predictability and guard against changes in the regulation but for the government they’re good too because often this is how a lot of major capital facilities are funded okay back to you Ben okay

Say if you watch them go ahead John the just two things one is so I start off by saying well how bad is that and what are the impacts and reminded me of the of an unfortunate phrase that Justice Ginsburg made using an earlier Cadiz decision this term

Where she said well the sky hasn’t fallen and some people have said well the sky is not going to fall out the combs and you know and I’m sure that’s true no the sky didn’t fall after the Dred Scott decision and the sky hasn’t fallen after you know unbelievable events and

Horrible period in the world in the nation’s history so you know I suppose it’s true that the Koontz decision is not going to cause the sky default but I think it’s a I think it’s well I think it’s a terrible decision doctrinally I think it has horrific consequences for

Local governments and planners and it makes the whole process more legalistic more fraught with potential liability and if you believe in the objectives and processes planning this is this is bad news not good news you know we’ll have to see how bad it is but shirring good news sure I could have

Caused the sky to fall but I just want to sort of underlying the point that the concern majority in the Supreme Court has dealt local governments a serious loss the other thing is I’m um I’m all for development agreements and I’m certainly all for pre-application negotiations when they makes when they

Include interested for the public and if you can get to yes through those procedures then that solves a lot of problem the difficulty of course is that the Koontz comes into play when when things fall apart and when there’s a disagreement and when this conflict and ultimately wins the threat of litigation

Or actual indication and and my concern is that the things said in the process of trying to negotiate an agreement or in the process of a pre-application meeting suggestions that the government or the public needs such-and-such away in a condition I can then you know three

Months six months a year later be used as a club in a coops claim to beat up on government and get get significant damages and get equitable relief and so as much as as I support the idea from tomorrow migrants and pre-application meetings I don’t think they they fully

Solve the problem of come from an exposure as a result of Coates from floating suggestions demands ideas however you want to characterize it and they all raise the specter of what Justice Kagan said which is that well advised local officials will simply clam up and not say anything because we know

Where the line is and the more intense the misc negotiations and the more substantive discussions the larger the ultimate local government exposure to liability if things ultimately go south thanks John hey we have a lot of questions here and I’d like to get to them but before we do I want to point

Out in response to technical questions these slides will be available on request by email sent to planning webcast at yahoo.com and of course this webcast is being recorded and will be available in the planning webcast series YouTube channel just search for planning webcast series and you’ll find this when we post

It in the next couple days you know the US Supreme Court is the is the the last word in legal issues in the United States yet it’s not going to be the last word in Koontz we have a couple of questions about what’s going to happen to Koontz on remand any predictions or

Or suggestions well I think that that’s a very good question because what comes out of this case is not compensation for a taking under the federal law which is what all the other takings you know claims have been about this this case says well there’s an unconstitutional condition the government list was wrong

To do that and then now we’re going to send it back to the Florida courts to figure out whether under state law there is compensation available so the Supreme Court changed the law dramatically I think and yet the consequences of of the change have been punted back to the state courts and

Whatever state statutes there might be or State case law there might be on on compensation and of course in this kind of circumstance where it’s a completely new kind of taking decision there’s relatively a little out there in the states I think to to figure out what

Kind of compensation if any might be available if if you’re able to to win so-called win a Coon’s case john waite any further comments on that I think that sort of one of the interesting questions going forward is generalizing from Coates is that if they if a permit is denied

Because of a disagreement over a condition and then there’s litigation over that condition that was never imposed the Court concludes that the condition that was never imposed what am I violated Nolan atolan what does the court do then does it reverse the denial and say the developer

Is entitled to an approval and forget the conditions or is the community entitled to restart the process you know I don’t think we know the answer to that question I think in the Koons case the courses are given the statute which provides mechanism for getting compensation due under the takings

Clause they’re not going to entitle any compensation so they’re not going to get any damages under the state statute there might be other scenarios in which people with unconstitutional conditions Koontz type claims could seek damages under federal or state law and not just compensation about damages well this is Dwight I’ve

Given up predicting years ago in the 1987 first English case that everybody thought was gonna rock the world on remand first English didn’t get a dime so who knows next question well I’d like to talk a little bit about the impact of Kuntz as interpreted through individual states

Laws you know I practice in New Hampshire and I look at Koontz and I in in in light of existing New Hampshire of law both statutory and case law I thought okay you know that’s pretty much in line with what New Hampshire is supposed to be doing anyway the planning

Ports and and local planners yet I think it’s going to vary quite a bit in other states do you agree well I think it’s not so much the process what’s the dramatic their innovation introduced by Nolan oh and now expanded by constants that the burden of proof is on is on the

Public and this is burdens of proof or what lawyers live and breathe about and it may be of less concern to planners but from the point of view of local government liability the burden of proof is really all-important if there’s a long debate and a lot of technical

Analysis and a lot of disputed facts on the table about what’s fair and what’s appropriate well when you present all that to the court and you have a battle of experts the law now is that in trying to figure out who wins the government doesn’t get the usual difference there’s

No there’s no difference to elected officials there’s no deference to the technical experts working for the government the tie goes to the developer it’s it’s an extraordinary exception to the general rule that reviewable governmental action favors government and and that’s why no one in Dolan claims when the courts get to the issue

If they if they’ve concluded that Nolan and Dolan is triggered that you’re dealing with an ax act exaction summit to Nolan and my review of the reported decisions indicates that government often times I’m not sure if it’s a majority at times but at least 50/50 loses the cases and

They lose the cases largely because if there’s a dispute a tie goes to the developer oh I don’t think so John I mean I I I think that I don’t think that shifting the burden to the government really changes things that much as a developer had the burden of going

Forward if the exactions and nobody’s told us yet what this heightened scrutiny is you know I don’t think it’s much higher test than a rational relationship which planners are going to do anyway they’re not going to make somebody build three lanes when they need one you know I just don’t I don’t

Think it’s gonna I don’t think the government ever got a buy from the courts generally and and I don’t think the courts are going to substitute their judgment for what governmental decision makers do as long as they have some evidence to back up their position I

Have to say that I think the opinion gives a lot of support to the property rights advocates if it’s not in very technical ways I think it gives a lot of moral support to to them and I think that can influence not only you know the local elected officials but the courts

If you look at the language of the decision it’s all about the misuse of the power of land use regulations the maneuvers of the local government evading Nolan and Dolan it’s something that will I think tip the scales and it may be an unmeasured way when there is maybe a tie

Just in the tone of the court saying we are we are particularly concerned about the Constitution when developers are getting land use permits and it’s an it’s a very extraordinary exception you know in constitutional law no I think you’re right about that Nancy I think it

Is going to have an influence on the decision making process and we have seen it with our loop or the religious land use and institutionalized persons act we’ve seen government’s second-guess themselves in making decisions about development of religious sites so yeah that’s I think you’re absolutely right

It is going to influence the process in a way that is more supportive of development than the government okay so more questions here this from Anna Brian Okello Anna we’d like to hear more about the difference between passive consideration of impact fees by permitting agencies versus implied

Demand it seems to be a thin line and oftentimes communities don’t get full information of project impacts at pre-op meetings anyone want to take that on I think that these decisions demand a lot more information as I said about project impacts and will require a lot more analytic work regarding conditions and

As communities go through the process of considering an application but then either in denying it or approving it they’re going to need a lot more backup for their conditions than they did in the past and for a larger universe of conditions and so they’re going to have

To develop that record the distinction I was drawing is that I think communities aren’t on safe ground and saying we are concerned this project that you’re proposing has dilatory assim pacts on traffic and as to traffic it’s going to put additional demands on it’s going to have a stormwater impact

And these are the these are the eight impacts that we’re concerned about under our criteria these lead us to know for this project it’s possible that these could be mitigated and if you you develop or think there are ways of mitigating it we be would be happy to

Entertain any ideas we are not in a position to offer any specific suggestions on what you should do but we’d be happy to entertain your ideas and if we think your ideas are worthy well we may be able to accept them but well we’re just going to the burden is

On you to come forward with ideas we’ll review them we’re not going to put anything on the table this is a one-sided negotiation I don’t think there’s anything I mean I think it’s clear that if the government doesn’t make any demands doesn’t say we want

This we need this they simply say we are opening we are open to the possibility of granting approval subject to various conditions that satisfactorily mitigate the impacts and if you have ideas on how to do that and we’ll consider that as an alternative to our current plan which is

To deny the approval you know as I say it’s a kind of a one-sided conversation and I think so long as the community keeps the conversation completely one-sided then they avoid the effect of coops well and this is exactly the problem that the American Planning Association amicus brief identified in

In the Coons case when the Association along with others filed in support of Florida or the Water Management District because planners like to solve problems a part of solving problems is you know getting into the negotiation process and it’s going to be so much more difficult

I believe to safely negotiate and as an attorney if a planner came to me and said you know what now can I do what can I say I think I would have to say you know the legal answer really is what John just said you can invite

Proposals but don’t get too invested in the in trying to provide your own suggestions because frankly that’s what happened here at the Water Management District and that’s what’s come back to bite them okay but this is Dwight I gotta say Ben and I’m I’d be pretty uncomfortable

About a sort of unilateral which is non negotiation and I think if we had exaction of heals processes at the local level administrative Lee we could solve the problems with a failed negotiation it’s also going to open the door to a discussion by the courts of ripeness

Rules as these issues come to court so I would you know I think good planning means good open bilateral negotiation and I just think it means that governments are going to have to be a little more careful in not overreaching when they start that dialogue but I also understand appreciate John and some

Extent I think Nancy’s saying supportive things about how to insulate yourself but I as a planner and a lawyer I still want to have an active negotiation nation we have go ahead John know I think let’s hear from the questions we have a couple of questions on conditional use permits and specifically

Hear from Jennifer Cowley in terms of applying this doesn’t mean that land use regulations be set up so they’re more cut and dried getting rid of conditional use permits and she asked for an explanation of what are legally defensible exactions are we going to get rid of fixed charging systems well I

Think what we talked about one of the potential safe harbors being legislative measures establishing exactions on development that apply in a uniform way to all developments and in California and many other jurisdictions if development fees are enacted through legislative action they are not subject to no unknown scrutiny

And the government doesn’t have to bear the burden of proof and a legal challenge to justify them so you know check your local listings to see what the law is on whether or not no no little legislative measures I think if the your governing precedent says that

Nolan and Dolan do not extend the legislation then whether or not you’re talking about dedications of land or dedications of fees you’re on your urine well you you are going to be a much more defensible position not necessarily impregnable position but I’m much more defensible position if you’ve adopted

The exaction through legislation clearly what the court is most concerned about is is the kind of horse trading that sometimes goes on with respect to an individual project twice example of the shopping center where where it is apparently a conversation about a particular mitigation project and the context for large development the more

Generalized the requirement I think the safer the community is I don’t think that’s resolved yet I don’t think the legislative immunity is is resolved yet after codes not the way to say do you see any difference between home rural jurisdictions versus Dillon’s rule I don’t think the Coons case has as much

Impact on those the Dillon’s rule jurisdictions of course require that you have very specific statutory authorization for whatever techniques you’re using and her rule gives you much more freedom I think in either case if an exaction is part of the picture it’s going to have to comply with the Nolan dalla napkins

Requirements now hmm we have a couple of questions here and and I’m going to pair these and this will be the last we we deal with one does this ruling give greater power to neighborhood organizations given that they’re non-governmental and can have these kinds of negotiations and part two is

Should communities be looking at alternative dispute resolution mediation arbitration as a means of solving disputes over conditions well this is quite I think I think neighborhoods may be somewhat disadvantaged by coops because the community benefit assessments are under within the reach of Koontz I think so that’s a that’s a

Problem and to the extent that there isn’t an open negotiation as to 80-yard again a local process for review and quickly getting to the table to have a conversation of litigation results I think is going to be useful this is John I think I never really know these

Question is interesting one because I suppose of a community for many reasons a community that has gotten this community benefits and some kind of package would want to see those memorialized in a government order regarding the development in order to make them enforceable and if they did

That then Nolan ago and would apply but I it’s sort of interesting to contemplate the idea of side contractual agreements that are presently private and I assume that Nolan are known for so then I I suppose as a possibility that community groups might want to look into negotiating protect their interests more

Outside the governmental process rather than inside Nancy any final thoughts well I just want to wish you know the the planners out there a lot of luck I am also advised that they speak to their City attorneys and local government attorneys and and also have a good discussion with their local elected

Officials to let them know that the game possibly has changed and they have to be a lot more careful about you know the bilateral discussions that that occurred in land use and I think that’s probably a great message to end on we are now out of time although there are many other

Questions that we didn’t get to I want to thank our speakers today John Echevarria Mike Miriam Nancy Stroud if you’re still on the webcast I want to go through a few reminders first off to log your cm credits for attending today’s webcast please go to

WWE on a org /cm enter today’s date and the name of the webcast of the state of takings after Koontz this is available for 1.5 law cm credits and we’re also recording today’s session so you’ll be able to find the recording of this webcast on our youtube channel

Just search planning webcast series you can also request a copy of the slides by emailing planning webcast at yahoo.com this concludes today’s session and I want to thank everyone again for attending

ID: WfSiEjSPRcs
Time: 1374961440
Date: 2013-07-28 02:14:00
Duration: 01:32:22

منبع