On Tuesday, the Supreme Court will hear argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. It is the fourth in a series of cases since 1987 involving the application of the unconstitutional conditions doctrine to the Takings Clause and land-use permits, namely, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), and Koontz v. St. John’s River Water District Management (2013). With Sheetz, the Court has an opportunity to reaffirm the theme it invoked in Dolan: “We see no reason why the Takings Clause, as much a part of the Bill of Rights as the First Amendment or Fourth Amendment, should be relegated to the status of a poor relation” relative to protections of other civil rights.
El Dorado County demanded $23,000 from George Sheetz as a condition of getting a building permit for a modest home. The money pays for road building that the county purports is necessary to accommodate new development. No one in the case disputes that the government can require a property owner to offset public costs arising from the impact of private development.
Comments