Among a number of US Supreme Court decisions this past week was one very important property rights case – Koontz vs. St. Johns River Water Management District.
The “little guy” property-owner, Mr. Coy Koontz, won this one against big government.
In this case, the government had heaped upon the private property owner all kinds of “good” regulation including “Water Resources Act” wetlands regulations.
Find out what's happening in Barringtonfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
The government felt these were a "rational means to a legitimate end".
After rounds of litigious tussle, the Florida State Supreme Court eventually upheld the government's scheme.
Find out what's happening in Barringtonfor free with the latest updates from Patch.
Mr. Koontz appealed to the US Supreme Court.
He won.
The US Supreme Court agreed with Mr. Koontz that a taxpayer’s money is protected under the "Takings Clause" of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution and "a demand for money can give rise to a claim under [property rights]".
The US Supreme Court held that "under [the] doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, discretionary government benefits cannot be conditioned on requirements that would burden owner's rights under U.S. Constitution"
Might the Koontz decision apply to state affordable housing demands on local communities?
On July 30, 2012, Barrington Town Council President June Speakman stated her reason for voting in 2008 to approve a special property tax rate for Sweetbriar: "The project was going to fail".
That 2008 Sweetbriar abatement decision came after Sweetbriar was already built and was for the ongoing property tax subsidies necessary to keep Sweetbriar afloat financially.
Can local property taxes be appropriated by the municipal government to subsidize the financial success of an “affordable” rental project that does not primarily serve Barrington residents? Is this a "requirement that would (unduly) burden owner's rights under [the] U.S. Constitution"?
During that same July 30, 2012 Council meeting, Assistant Town Solicitor Nancy Letendre opined that "a favorable [property] tax scheme for rental housing which is encumbered with a deed restriction...is constitutional".
Ms Letendre went on to cite the "rational means to a legitimate end" theory.
But the US Supreme Court now seems to explicitly disagree with Ms. Letendre.
The question for our local government now?
Can the government take money from local property taxpayers to pay for “affordable housing” initiatives for non-chargeables (non-residents)?
No.
One question is whether this Koontz decision also means that the development originally proposed for the Palmer Pointe property should not have been denied.
The more immediate issue for the Town Council is to appropriately address whether Barrington's quest for “affordable” housing should come at the expense of local taxpayers.