8/ “INACTION CAN ALSO BE A REGULATORY TAKING”: Beginning in 2003, Mark Zweber sought permits from Scott County and Credit River Township to convert his land into a housing development. After seven years of qualified approvals and demanded revisions by the two boards, Zweber secured a court order directing Scott County to approve the 40-plot development in 2010. The County did nothing for over two years. In 2013, after ten years of bureaucratic lolly-gagging, Zweber was presented with a foreclosure notice by his creditor.
In 2014, Zweber won preliminary motions from the trial court on his federal claims that the local governments had amounted to an unconstitutional taking of property without just compensation under the United States and Minnesota Constitutions and 42 U.S.C. §1983. Zweber also won early motions on a federal complaint asserting an equal-protection claim, alleging that he had received disparate treatment from that received by Laurent, a similarly situated developer, who had obtained similar permits on adjoining land.
The bureaucrats on the two boards rushed a pre-trial appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals, which held in 2015 that the county court did not have the jurisdiction to hear the two federal claims regarding Zweber’s allegations of “regulatory taking.”
In 2016, the Supreme Court held that the county court did have the jurisdiction to decide on Zweber’s claim. Chief Justice Gildea suggested a more streamlined approach to resolving the matter in a concurring opinion.
Mark R. Zweber, Appellant, vs. Credit River Township, et al., Respondents.
July 27, 2016 2016-094
https://mn.gov/law-library-stat/archive/supct/2016/OPA140893-072716.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment