inversecondemnation

 

Thanks!
Curtis D. Harris, BS, CGREA, REB
Bachelor of Science in Real Estate, CSULA
Associate of Arts in Architecture, LACC
State Certified General Appraiser
Real Estate Broker
ASTM E-2018 Commercial Real Estate Inspector
HUD 203k Repair/Rehab Consultant
HUD/FHA Real Estate Appraiser/Reviewer
FannieMae REO Consultant
CTAC LEED Certification

The Harris Company, Forensic Appraisers and Real Estate Consultants
*PIRS/Harris Company and the Science of Real Estate-Partners*
630 North Sepulveda Boulevard, Suite 9A
El Segundo, CA. 90245
310-337-1973 Office
310-251-3959 Cell

WebSite: http://www.harriscompanyrec.com
Resume: http://harriscompanyrec.com/commercialappraiser.pdf
Commercial Appraiser Blog: http://harriscompanyrec.com/blog/

IT'S THE LAW-Designation Discrimination is Illegal [FIRREA, Sec. 564.6]: Professional Association Membership http://www.orea.ca.gov/html/fed_regs.shtml#Statement7 Membership in an appraisal organization: A State Certified General Appraiser may not be excluded from consideration for an assignment for a federally related transaction by virtue of membership or lack of membership in any particular appraisal organization, including the appraisal institute.

CONFIDENTIALITY/PRIVILEGE NOTICE: This transmission and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee. The information contained in this transmission is confidential in nature and protected from further use or disclosure under U.S. Pub. L. 106-102, 113 U.S. Stat. 1338 (1999), and may be subject to consultant/appraiser-client or other legal privilege. Your use or disclosure of this information for any purpose other than that intended by its transmittal is strictly prohibited and may subject you to fines and/or penalties under federal and state law. If you are not the intended recipient of this transmission, please destroy all copies received and confirm destruction to the sender via return transmittal.

 

Date: Sat, 30 May 2015 12:17:46 +0000
Subject: inversecondemnation
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

inversecondemnation.com

inversecondemnation

Mark Your Calendars June 12, 2015: Free ABA Teleconference "Everything a Land Use Lawyer Needs To Know About Dancing California Raisins: A Report From the Oral Arguments in Horne v. USDA"

Posted: 29 May 2015 09:51 AM PDT

For those of you who are members of the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law's Land Use Committee (if you aren't, you can become a member easily; just ask me how), please tune in on June 12, 2015 for our monthly teleconference.
Here's the announcement:
Our third meeting is scheduled for Friday, June 12, 2015 at 2:00 pm EST, and we will be featuring as our speaker, Robert Thomas, a land use lawyer and publisher of the law blog inversecondemnation.com (who is also the Chair of the Section’s Eminent Domain Committee) who will present a 20 minute program about the key takings case now awaiting decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, Horne v. United States Dep’t of Agriculture. 
FREE Teleconference Sponsored by the Land Use Committee
Friday, June 12, 2015
2:00 p.m. EST
Dial-in 888-3967955
Passcode 797687#
Everything a Land Use Lawyer Needs To Know About Dancing California Raisins: A Report From the Oral Arguments in Horne v. USDA

Speaker: Robert H. Thomas, Damon Key Leong Kupchak Hastert, Honolulu, Hawaii

In late April, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a takings case that may have slipped under your radar because it is not a traditional land use case. The implications for takings doctrine and land use law, however, may be huge, as reflected by the number of amicus briefs submitted to the Court. The case involves Marvin and Laura Horne, California raisin farmers who were accused of violating a New Deal-era statute which was designed to control the market price of raisins. This statute and its implementing regulations, which Justice Kagan described as “perhaps the world’s most outdated law,” require farmers like the Hornes to turn over to the government a portion of their annual crop – up to 50% -- “as an entrance fee” to the market, as the Ninth Circuit explained. The first time this case was considered by the Court a few years ago, the Justices agreed with the Hornes that they could raise the Takings Clause as a defense to the imposition of the regulation, and were not limited to seeking the payment of just compensation in the Court of Federal Claims. The Ninth Circuit on remand upheld the regulation, concluding the requirement to turn over to the government a portion of the yearly crop was not a taking, and the Supreme Court agreed to consider the case again.
Mr. Thomas attended the arguments, and will brief us with his observations and thoughts about the implications and impacts of the case, and perhaps even a prediction about how the Court might rule. 
* * * *
This exciting new opportunity is for our existing Land Use Committee members and those of you who are land use practitioners in our Section who may not yet have joined our committee. The meetings occur on a monthly basis, by conference call, in addition to our in-person meetings at our Section’s spring and fall conferences. These regular monthly meetings consist of some committee business, offering opportunities for all of our members to participate in CLE programs, book projects, speaking opportunities and periodical publications.
Also, at each phone/webinar meeting, we will have a substantive program that you will not want to miss, featuring cutting edge subjects in the area of land use, planning and zoning law.

I hope you can join us.
Related articles

WSJ Law Blog: "Hawaii Military Carve Out May Play Role in Voting District Case"

Protip: File Your CFC Complaint First, And Then File Your District Court Action - Even If It Makes No Sense

Final Chapter In Judicial Selection Commission List Public Records Case



NY App: Taking Invalidated Because Town Segmented Environmental Review

Posted: 29 May 2015 09:38 AM PDT

A typically short and cryptic one from the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Department, but at least there's not a lengthy opinion standing between you and weekend. 
In J. Owens Building Co., Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, No. D45488 (May 27, 2015), the court concluded the town improperly divided up its downtown revitalization project into too many pieces before determining that it would not have an environmental impact. The court held that the town should not have looked only at the drainage and storm water management part of that plan, but should have considered it as part of the larger project. Consequently, the condemnation was invalid.
A good reminder that there's more than one way to skin a cat when it comes to challenging the power to take, and that we aren't limited to traditional "public use/purpose" theories. 
J. Owens Building Co., Inc. v. Town of Clarkstown, No. D45488 (N.Y.A.D. May 27, 2015)

Related articles

Just "Compensation" Just Took On A Whole New Meaning In Iowa Pipeline Dispute

Big Law vs. Honolulu's Not-So-Big Law

Protip: File Your CFC Complaint First, And Then File Your District Court Action - Even If It Makes No Sense

Sue Early, Sue Often If Your Home Flooded With Municipal Waste In Oregon



This posting includes an audio/video/photo media file: Download Now

You are subscribed to email updates from inversecondemnation.com

To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
Email delivery powered by Google

Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States