Error during command authentication.
Error - unable to initiate communication with LISTSERV (errno=10061, phase=CONNECT, target=127.0.0.1:2306). The server is probably not started.
Nathan, Justice Kavanaugh agrees with you that the Sheetz ruling has nothing to do with the common practice of impact fees on new developments if based on formulas on the type of development. Your assumption that the court would agree with you to throw out all forms of mandatory permit conditions in the future though is wishcasting I think. ……..the court’s ruling in Sheetz’s case “does not address or prohibit the common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new developments through reasonable formulas or schedules that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property.”…………. https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/04/court-rules-for-property-owner-in-building-fee-dispute/*:*:text=California*20homeowner*20George*20Sheetz*20won,permit*20to*20build*20his*20home__;I34lJSUlJSUlJQ!!KOmxaIYkRmNA0A!W9VBQUUien32fcfD4RKo-N97xR1t5UQF4iYOGL81ZEMPZJGfuV8jWe0o-UBvkswMF_S51TiQFe2N4S82UZEHchjkkR-NNNUn$ . Sincerely, Commissioner Willits From: Nathan Collier <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2024 10:48 AM To: Ward, Harvey L <[log in to unmask]>; Book, Edwin A <[log in to unmask]>; Chestnut, Cynthia M <[log in to unmask]>; Walker, Desmon N <[log in to unmask]>; Eastman, Bryan M <[log in to unmask]>; Willits, Casey W <[log in to unmask]>; Saco, Reina E <[log in to unmask]> Cc: North Central Florida Apartment Association <[log in to unmask]>; Board of County Comm [Email [log in to unmask]] <[log in to unmask]> Subject: [EXTERNAL] City's proposed Mandatory Subsidized Housing risks running afoul of US Constitution's Takings Clause: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The very fact that is mandatory, a stick not a carrot, mak... City's proposed Mandatory Subsidized Housing risks running afoul of US Constitution’s Takings Clause: “Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The very fact that is mandatory, a stick not a carrot, make a strong argument that the (often unwanted) density clause is not ‘just compensation’. If it were sufficient , it would be a voluntary incentive. Interesting, The Supreme Court just ruled Friday/yesterday 9-0 in SHEETZ v. COUNTY OF EL DORADO in support of the Takings Clause. While not directly on point (was re excessive traffic impact fee on single family home); a unanimous decision does give guidance re the current courts likely stance. ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the MARIHELEN-WHEELER list, click the following link: http://listserv.alachuacounty.us/scripts/wa.exe?SUBED1=MARIHELEN-WHEELER