About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

1 1 (December 27, 2023)

handle is hein.crs/govenvo0001 and id is 1 raw text is: Congressional_______ Sesearch Servi e Sheetz v. County of El Dorado: The Court Explores Legislative Exactions and the Takings Clause December 27, 2023 On January 9, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. The dispute in this case centers around an exaction, which is a government-imposed requirement that a project developer provide certain public benefits to offset the impacts of the project on the public. Over thirty-five years ago in Nollan v California Coastal Comm 'n, the Court recognized that an onerous exaction may constitute a taking of property, requiring compensation in accordance with the Takings Clause of the U.S. Constitution, if there is no essential nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the land use regulation. Seven years later in Dolan v City of igard, the Court developed the rough proportionality test for determining whether an exaction rises to the level of an unconstitutional taking, finding that the exaction must be sufficiently related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development. Sheetz will be the Court's first exactions case since its 2013 decision in Koontz v. St. John 's River Water Mgm 't Dist. In that case, the Court held that the essential nexus and rough proportionality requirements of Nollan and Dolan apply to government exaction demands even if the demands are financial and the government denies the application resulting in no property being taken. The exaction at issue in Sheetz is a Traffic Impact Fee imposed via legislation by the County of El Dorado, California on any party requesting a building permit from the County. The County imposes the fee based on the location and type of the proposed project, without regard to the project's individualized impact on traffic or the County's roads. The California intermediate appellate court, applying state law, held that 'legislatively prescribed monetary fees'-as distinguished from a monetary condition imposed on an individual permit application on an ad hoc basis-'that are imposed as a condition of development are not subject to the Nollan Dolan test.' As a result, the court rejected the claim of the property developer that the fee was an unconstitutional exaction. The state supreme court denied review. The case thus presents the U.S. Supreme Court with an opportunity to consider a question of first impression: whether a legislatively imposed exaction is exempt from the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine as applied in Nollan and Dolan. Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov LSB11098 CRS Legal Sidebar Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most