A California property owner took El Dorado County to state court after paying a traffic impact fee he felt was exorbitant. He lost in trial court, appellate court, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Then the U.S. Supreme Court acted.
In a 9-0 court decision on April 12, the U.S. Supreme Court "ruled that developers and home builders in California may challenge the fees commonly imposed by cities and counties to pay for new roads, schools, sewers and other public improvements," reported David G. Savage for the Los Angeles Times on April 12.
[Related: "California Impact Fees Reach Supreme Court," October 4, 2023]
Background
"The case arose when property owner George Sheetz sought a permit to put a manufactured home on a lot he owned in Placerville, outside Sacramento. El Dorado County required him to pay a “traffic impact mitigation” fee to obtain the permit," adds Savage. The fee was $23,420.
Some of the money was to go toward upgrades to Highway 50, which runs through the area, but most was to go toward new or expanded roads in the county.
At issue is how to view impact fees, "payments required by local governments of new development for the purpose of providing new or expanded public capital facilities required to serve that development," according to an American Planning Association policy guide ratified in April 1997, and their relationship with the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
Can impact fees be considered a "taking" if inappropriately applied?
Savage continues:
Writing for the court in Friday’s ruling [pdf], conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”
JD Supra, a leading resource for law firms, explained the ruling in similar terms in the first paragraph of their summary of the decision:
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, holding that the Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions,” but instead “prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”
The article adds that Sheetz paid the fee but claimed that it "constituted an unlawful 'exaction' of money in violation of the Takings Clause."
Yes, California's impact fees have been shown to be excessive, according to a related post:
What's needed?
Savage of the the Times spoke with state Sen. Scott Wiener ( D-San Francisco), author some of the state's most far-reaching housing legislation, regarding the decision.
“Ultimately, the solution is the same today as it was yesterday,” Wiener said. “The California Legislature needs to put in place an actual structure for impact fees. Right now, it’s all over the map.”
As for Mr. Sheetz, it's back to state court, as Justice Barrett directed at the end of the majority opinion:
The judgment of the California Court of Appeal is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Additional reading, related posts:
- San Mateo Daily Journal: SCOTUS ruling upends how cities charge development impact fees regionally and statewide, Apr 13, 2024
- Planning Report: Nollan-Dolan "Taking" Doctrine: Landmark Supreme Court Cases? August 30, 1994
- Justice Scalia and the Takings Clause, February 18, 2016
- U.S. Supremes Tighten the Screws on Exactions, June 26, 2013
FULL STORY: Builders may fight ‘impact fees’ that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules
Will Supreme Court Case Lead to Lower Impact Fees — or Just More Studies?
Everybody seems to think that the recent case from California could lead to dramatically lower fees — and lower housing costs. But that's not what the court decided.
Commentary: Eminent Domain is a Slippery Slope
Can accepting eminent domain lead to accepting the loss of other, more foundational rights?
Property Owners Sue Miami for Unlawfully Taking Property via Permit Applications
The suit claims the city is using unrelated permit applications to unlawfully gain right-of-way.
The state-sanctioned urbicide of Austin
People don’t kill cities. Freeways do.
US to reduce Colorado River water deliveries to Mexico
A new Colorado Treaty amendment reduces Mexico’s Colorado River water allocation by 250,000 acre feet.
New Jersey’s second-largest city bans standalone data centers
Jersey City will continue to allow co-location facilities, such as those meant for research institutions that store their own data.
Amtrak not solely to blame for New Jersey commuter rail's unreliability, report finds
A new study from the Garden State Initiative found that NJ Transit’s budget grew 20% across a 4 year period, but reliability declined significantly over the same period.
EPA erases limits on planet-warming pollution from power plants
Under Monday’s plan, power plants would still have some limits on how much mercury, arsenic and other contaminants they can emit.
Phoenix announces new on-demand transit service, more frequent RAPID buses
Both new services will launch in October, and are part of Phoenix's Project Effective Access Solutions for Easing Congestion.
FREE Course: Walkable City 1: Why Walkability?
After describing his path towards focusing on walkability as the essence of good planning, Jeff Speck marches through his five principal reasons for making more walkable places.
Reinventing Malls: Planning Alchemy—Turning Gray Fields Into Gold
The course focuses on the opportunities and imperatives that shape reinvention of mall sites.
Eagle County Government
Harvard University Graduate School of Design
Nashville Planning Department
The Architects Foundation
University of Cincinnati Online
The Pocatello Development Authority
The Urban Renewal Agency of the City of Pocatello
Journal of the American Planning Association