FYI: A good day at the Supreme Court for New California State DC U
AENN
Chriss W. Street
An update from DC —
This morning I was at the Supreme Court watching oral arguments in Sheetz v. El Dorado County, the property rights case brought by California retiree George Sheetz. (Pacific Legal Foundation joined George’s case several months ago as co-counsel, teaming up with our former PLF colleague Paul Beard at FisherBroyles, LLC.)
The facts of George’s case are infuriating, particularly to those of us who live in California. George was slapped with a $23,420 “traffic impact fee” when he applied for a building permit in El Dorado County, California. He faced “an impossible choice,” as Paul told the Supreme Court Justices today, “the taking of over $23,000 or the ability to use his land.”
Here’s how The Wall Street Journal editorial board summarized George’s case: “The question is simple: Can governments use building permits to extort property owners?”
Our answer, of course, is no.
“Everyone loves good roads and schools and public infrastructure,” Paul told the Court in his powerful rebuttal. “The government certainly has many tools at its disposal, including taxes, to pay for those. What we’re saying is the government can’t select a few property owners, who happen to need a permit at any given time, to bear the burden of paying for that public infrastructure.”
I’ve been to many Supreme Court oral arguments before. But today I saw something extraordinary. The County’s attorney conceded during the argument on the main question before the Court: whether permit conditions should be exempt from what’s called the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine” when they’re enacted legislatively.
“I thought we had taken the case to address that question,” Justice Neil Gorsuch said after the County’s attorney conceded that legislative exactions are not exempt. “I think there’s radical agreement on that question today.”
It was a promising moment for George Sheetz, who was in the Court watching. George has been fighting his case for seven years. He told ABC10 that at this point, it’s not about the money but about “trying to change things that are going on this country.”
Thank you to George for fighting and to all PLF supporters for being on his side. More on George’s story below.
From The Wall Street Journal: Politicians increasingly trample property rights to promote what they deem to be the public good. Think of mandates that housing developers set aside a share of apartment units for low-income tenants. Progressive states and cities warn that a ruling for Mr. Sheetz could imperil such schemes. Perhaps. But the Constitution doesn’t let the government commit highway robbery.
From Bloomberg Law: It’s the “classic American tale” of a laborer turned business owner at the mercy of his local government, said PLF attorney Brian Hodges.
From ABC10: “When you’re looking at how much money you have to try to retire, that is an enormous amount of money to someone like me,” Sheetz said.
From SCOTUSblog: Interest groups on both sides of the case tell the Justices that their ruling will have implications well beyond Sheetz’s case—and, in particular, for the affordable housing crisis in California. Both a building industry trade association and affordable housing groups supporting Sheetz contend that fees like the one levied on Sheetz are a major factor in the high cost of housing in California.
From National Review: Sheetz now comes to the Court asking it to confirm the role of the Takings Clause in securing one’s right to build on property free of predatory conditions by the government. It should.
