The Constitution provides “no textual justification for saying that the existence or the scope of a State’s power to expropriate private property without just compensation varies according to the branch of government effecting the expropriation.”
The case in question is Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California.
Background:
Background of the Case: George Sheetz, the petitioner, was required by the County of El Dorado to pay a $23,420 traffic impact fee as a condition of receiving a residential building permit. The fee was part of a “General Plan” enacted by the County’s Board of Supervisors to address increasing demand for public services spurred by new development.
Reason for the Case:
Sheetz claimed that conditioning the building permit on the payment of a traffic impact fee constituted an unlawful “exaction” of money in violation of the Takings Clause. He argued that the Court’s decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, and Dolan v. City of Tigard, required the County to make an individualized determination that the fee imposed on him was necessary to offset traffic congestion attributable to his project.
Content of the Case:
The courts below ruled against Sheetz based on their view that Nollan and Dolan apply only to permit conditions imposed on an ad hoc basis by administrators, not to a fee like this one imposed on a class of property owners by Board-enacted legislation.
Final Opinion of the Case:
The Supreme Court held that the Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land-use permit conditions. Therefore, the ruling was in favor of Sheetz, overturning the decision of the lower courts.
Need to Fight the System?
See what we can do for you
Call to Fight for your Rights (248) 357-2550
