Property owners have diminished due process rights when dealing with the regulatory morass of governmental entities. The best article I have read regarding this problem was written by Jeremy Talcotta, Attorney, entitled "Due Process: Criminals vs. property owners" published in PLF's Sword&Scales, Spring 2018 issue.
You read in a newspaper or online a new commercial development has been approved by the City/County in your neighborhood. You do not want the commercial development. What can you do to stop it?
A recent trend in Southern California cities has real estate developers concerned. Simply stated, cities are being restricted from issuing zoning changes which are crucial for new development projects. Cities like Malibu, Encinitas, and Newport Beach are just a few examples of cities that already have restrictions in place that prevent them from issuing the zoning changes for real estate development projects.
As this Firm anticipated back in September, the Supreme Court recently declined to hear a challenge to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. __ (2016). At issue in BIA's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was whether the city's "Inclusionary Housing Ordinance," which required that residential developments of at least twenty (20) homes sell at least fifteen percent (15%) of the homes at below-market prices (as determined by the City) to buyers with qualifying income levels, was an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
The San Mateo Daily Journal reports here on a coming battle with the California Coastal Commission that should alarm coastal mobilehome park owners and residents alike.
City ordinances can impact both the rental units owners and the persons wanting to rent those units.
Land use for real property is rarely considered when potential legislative acts are considered. The resolution of social issues can affect local land use ordinances and regulations, by which a local juridiction controls the legal use of the real property. The most typical examples involve residential and commerical developments. Additionally, local jurisdictions may impose other ordinances or regulations that limit a certain number of business to a specific geographic area (e.g., only a limited number of hair salons may be licensed).
As promised in October 2015, SeaWorld LLC dba SeaWorld San Diego has commenced litigation against the California Coastal Commission over a decision to condition SeaWorld's new orca enclosure on numerous onerous conditions, including those that dealt with the husbandry practices and transportation restrictions of the orcas. The initial Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory Relief was filed on Tuesday, December 29, 2015 after an agreement by the parties to extend the time period for which SeaWorld had to file its lawsuit.
Commercial Real Estate development and the landowners took a serious "hit" when the voters in Malibu voted to curtail commercial development. Anyone who has been to or lives in the city of Malibu may agree that the city is "a unique oasis in the midst of urban and suburban sprawl and development." The supporters of Measure R contended it was necessary in order to preserve the city's charm and character. Residents last year approved Measure R; a city ordinance that would essenially curtail large scale commercial real estate development. The court did not agree.
In another sweeping decision, the California Coastal Commission has seemingly overstepped its jurisdiction of regulating the use of land and water in the coastal zone by imposing certain breeding restrictions on SeaWorld's orca breeding practices. Specifically, the Coastal Commission approved SeaWorld's replacement and expansion of its existing orca facility subject to several special conditions. One such condition is the discontinuation of SeaWorld's practice of breeding captive orcas, or transporting whales from other facilities. As SeaWorld prepares to challenge this condition, Californians must ask whether, as a public policy, the Coastal Commission should have jurisdiction over the use of land and water within the coastal zone and the animal husbandry practices of trained veterinarian professionals. Although the Coastal Commission's most recent decision appears facially inconsistent with the legislative intent of the Coastal Act and potentially in conflict with the federal law governing such practices, it will certainly be interesting to follow SeaWorld's impending legal challenge.