DID YOU KNOW That In 2013 The Supreme Court Struck Down The Ability To Effectively Negotiate With Developers For Building Permits?

Last June 2013 the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) handed down a decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District that could have serious implications for local development including development right here in Redwood City.  (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1447_4e46.pdf)

In short the case of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District revolves around a 14.9-acre property purchased in 1972 by Coy Koontz, Sr – primarily wetlands – east of Orlando which he envisioned as a building, a parking lot and a retention pond.  Mr. Koontz had to apply for a permit to the local water management district to develop 3.7 acres of the land including dredging and filling it in.   Florida law, like California law, already protects the state's wetlands, anyone who wants to dredge or fill wetlands must get a special permit.  

Historically land-use agencies that issued those type of permits could require property owners to offset any environmental damage to get the necessary permit.  In this case, upon processing the permit application the water management district counter offered with a permit that only allowed building on one acre.  In the final analysis, Mr. Koontz took the water management district to court and the case spent over ten years in the court system finally reaching the Supreme Court of the US last year.

Unfortunately, SCOTUS sided with the developer 5-4.  No longer can cities, local or state governments ask for compensation or concessions from local property owners or developers.  This means that community benefits, development projects such as One Marina used to gain public acceptance may now be found to be illegal.  

The question is would you have supported the One Marina project without the additional community benefits?  What about the recently submitted hotel building project that developer now has in mind for the balance of the original project area?  What about the Pete's project?

Just to be clear although I am not a lawyer the concept a lot of people have that THE LAW is something set in stone is wrong.   Especially in the American legal system the law is  for lack of a better explanation  a breathing, living, constantly evolving set of guidelines.  So we don't yet know the full implications of this change.    But one way or another it does have implications for any new development being proposed be it Pete's, One Marina or the Inner Harbor.  It may even have implications for projects already in process.   And it certainly has huge ramifications for any type of proposed community benefit plans. 

Given these new laws, before simply approving additional projects responsible city management should take a second look at some of these issues.  Back in June of last year, the  American Planning Association wrote of this decision:

“The Court’s decision today has jeopardized local governments’ ability to ensure that the costs of new development are fairly born by its developers and users. The decision will instill fear in local agencies to even begin mitigation discussions with landowners and discourages them from seeking ways to allow development to actually proceed. The four dissenting justices suggest one course of action: ‘Deny the permits.’ The majority decision leaves no one certain of which discussions - or required payments - may be subject to heightened scrutiny.”