Can the Government Impose a Set and Predetermined Fee on a Landowner Who Seeks to Develop His Property, Based Only on the Location of the Property and the Type of Development, Without an Individualized Assessment of the Development's Public Costs?

CASE AT A GLANCE The county of El Dorado, California, adopted a plan that imposed a fee on any landowner who sought to develop their property. The county implemented the fee in order to finance the construction of new roads and to widen existing roads related to the proposed development. The county...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Preview of United States Supreme Court cases 2024-01, Vol.51 (4), p.11
Main Author: Schwinn, Steven D
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Analysis
Costs (Law)
Eminent domain (Law)
Real estate development
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:CASE AT A GLANCE The county of El Dorado, California, adopted a plan that imposed a fee on any landowner who sought to develop their property. The county implemented the fee in order to finance the construction of new roads and to widen existing roads related to the proposed development. The county calculated the fee according to a set and predetermined schedule, based on the location of the property and the type of proposed development. In 2016, the county imposed a fee of $23,420 on George Sheetz, who sought to build a home on his property. The county calculated the fee based on the location of the house (Zone 6) and the type of project (a single-family home). Otherwise, the county made no individualized determination that Sheetz's home would require new or expanded roads, or that the fee was proportional to the cost of any new or expanded roads. Sheetz sued, arguing that the fee amounted to an uncompensated taking in violation of the Takings Clause.
ISSN:0363-0048