Background: George Sheetz was mandated to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee as a condition for obtaining a residential building permit, which he contested as an unlawful exaction under the Takings Clause.
Court’s Decision: The Supreme Court, in an opinion delivered by Justice Barrett, vacated the ruling of the California Court of Appeal. The decision clarified that the Takings Clause does not differentiate between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions, reinforcing property rights protections against arbitrary government exactions.
Legal Principles Invoked: The Court applied the tests from Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n and Dolan v. City of Tigard, emphasizing that permit conditions must both have an “essential nexus” to the government’s land-use interest and be “roughly proportional” to the impacts of the proposed development.
Impact and Precedent: The ruling underscores the necessity for governmental authorities, whether legislative or administrative, to adhere strictly to constitutional principles when imposing conditions on building permits. This decision is a significant affirmation of property rights, setting a precedent that both legislative and administrative exactions are subject to the same constitutional scrutiny.
This decision marks a critical juncture in property law, reaffirming the Supreme Court’s commitment to protecting individual property rights against overreach by local governments.
Supreme Court Decision: SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO
(Click below to view the entire decision)
Comments are closed.
