The United States Supreme Court Answered "YES" to the $1.45 million over exaction question for 1999. In City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd., a unanimous court extended the scope of compensatory takings review beyond land dedication conditions into the realm of regulatory denial. Justice Kennedy's opinion vitalized the "legitimate state interests" test from Agins v. City of Tiburon to sustain an inverse condemnation conclusion and damage award to the frustrated developer. A majority of the court also concurred that the trial court may delegate this takings conclusion to the jury under federal civil rights law. The activation of Agins' substantive takings test in such challenges and the prospect of continued lay application of constitutional law to development restrictions add uncertain dimensions to exactions litigation at the millennium. In Del Monte Dunes, the Court also distinguished the instant development denial of an inverse condemnation claim from the land dedication conditions at issue in Dolan v. City of Tigard. This distinction enabled the unanimous Court to uphold the trial verdict based on Agins and avoid elements of the Ninth Circuit's reasoning invoking the Dolan rough proportionality test. Other recent federal and state decisions also decline to extend Dolan's applicability beyond individual land dedication development conditions to other forms of economic exactions. This year's exactions and impact fee report focuses on Del Monte Dunes, namely its effects on negotiated development, trial practice, and on regulatory takings doctrine as defined by judges and juries in civil rights litigation.
31 Urban Lawyer 831-848 (1999)
Davidson, Jonathan M.; Rosenberg, Ronald H.; and Spata, Michael C., "Negotiated Development Denial Meets People's Court: Del Monte Dunes Brings New Wildcards to Exactions Law" (1999). Faculty Publications. 246.