Koontz Will Significantly Alter The Way In Which Private Property Rights, Government Regulation, And Exactions For Public Benefits Will Play Out In The Future, And Everyone Needs To Understand It Thoroughly

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

The United States Supreme Court announced Tuesday its decision in a major land use case concerning the government's leverage to exact concessions and money payments in exchange for permits for land use development.

In a 5-4 opinion issued Tuesday, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court's decision dismissing a property owner's takings claim against a water reclamation district, holding that the Nollan/Dolan takings requirements apply even when a governmental body denies a permit, and where the government imposes monetary exactions. Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District

This decision had been widely speculated to be perhaps the most important Supreme Court land-use decision in 20 years, depending on how reaching the court's ruling was (See hypothesizing as to the possible outcomes.) For once, the Supreme Court made a significant and substantial contribution to land-use constitutional law, an area in which even the court had conceded its inability to fashion clear law. Koontz could have a significant effect on the balance of power between land-use developers seeking permits and public entities using that process to exact all manner of "free concessions" ranging from new city halls to substantial monetary payments.

In 1994, Koontz sought to develop land lying within a Riparian Habitat Protection Zone in Florida. Because most of the property was wetlands, Koontz was required to obtain a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District. In order to mitigate the impact from the development, the District required Koontz either to lower the scale of his proposed development and restore and enhance at least 50 acres of wetlands on a parcel 4.5 miles away or perform similar off-site mitigation at a site seven miles away. The District also demanded on-site mitigation through a conservation easement or deed restriction on the rest of his property. Koontz took exception, rejected each of the District's proposals, and as a result, his permit was denied. Koontz, who apparently was noted as somewhat stubborn, filed suit, arguing that the District was liable for a taking of his property requiring compensation. (Unfortunately, Koontz died before he could see the result.) The District argued that the takings analysis of Nollan and Dolan do not apply to the denial of Koontz's permit because no dedication of land was required and no damages were incurred. The Florida Supreme...