AgdaPkt 2005-02-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

7-14.'1 LEGAL ADVOCACY from page 3 ....... had an attorney-client relationship with the attor- ney, or whether the attorney's client was the agency. The court of appeal has stayed the trial and is seeking additional briefing on the public policy concerns of shifting liability for criminal conduct to a public agency. The League thanks Manuela Albuquerque, City Attorney, Berkeley, for writing the friend-of- the-court brief in support of the Port of San Diego's petition for writ of mandate on behalf of the League. The name of the case is Chapman, et al. v. Malcolm. Constitutionality of RLUIPA A local church desired to relocate in a down- town redevelopment zone. The property was being leased to a local grocery store; it was the only grocery available to downtown residents. The city denied the church's CUP. The church brought an action under RLUIPA. The district court held that RLUIPA was unconstitutional. The League thanks Jeffrey T. Melching of Rutan & Tucker for writing the friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the League, the American Planning Association, and the International Municipal Lawyers Association. The name ofthe case is Elsinore Christian Center, et al. v. City of Lake Elsinore. Copies of recent filings are available at: www.cacities.ora/recentfilinas. Following guideline changes relating to the League's friend-of-the-court participation that were adopted in 2002, typically briefs are filed on behalf ofthe League rather than on behalf of joining cities. To request League amicus assistance visit: www.cacities.ora/reauestamicus. RESOURCE CENTER from page 1 . . . . . . . The case that has garnered the most attention Qncluding a two page spread in People Magazine!) is Kelo v. City of New London, which considers the extent to which land may be condemned for eco- nomic development is a "public use" under the Takings Clause (see Jan. 28 Priority Focus story). But the other two cases also raise important issues. In San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Fran- cisco, the Court will consider whether owners may raise a takings claim in federal court after they have litigated the same claim in state court. If the court agrees with developers, it may mean an significant increase in litigation costs for local agencies. And in Ungie v. Chevron, USA, the Court will consider the extent to which economic regulations (in this case, the state of Hawaii set limits on gas station lease rates) may be deemed a taking of property. In light of these developments, the Institute for Local Government has updated its online Takings Resource Center to keep local officials better informed of developments in this area of the law. In addition to providing summaries to the pending cases listed above, the Center includes a number of resources of value to local officials, including the recent white paper: Property Rights and Land Use Regulation: A Primer for Public Agency Officials. Other site materials include: . A sample variance procedure that can be used to gain better information during the application process and avoid litigation . Links to summaries and opinions of landmark takings decisions . Impact fees section with the best thinking about the constitutional limits of imposing fees and dedications . A PDF copy of the Takings Litigation Hand- book for attorneys . Commentary about the takings issue from state and national experts The Takings Resource Center can be found on the Institute's website at www.ilsg.orgltakings. For For more information about the League's more about the Institute's work on land use and Legal Advocacy Program visit: www.cacities.ora/ planning issues, please visit www.ilsa.org/ianduse. leaaladvocacv. PAGE 4/PRIORITV FOCUS Visit the League's Official Web Site--www.cacities.org