Using California Development Law to Clarify Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District's Silence

摘要

The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause doctrine is continually being shaped and clarified through the opinions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the interpretation of those opinions by the lower courts. Where the lower courts disagree, the Supreme Court has stepped in to ensure consistency. Recently, however, in an attempt to elucidate whether the heightened scrutiny test developed in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard applied to monetary exactions, the Court left more questions than answers. The Nollan/Dolan test requires that conditions imposed in exchange for a land use permit have an essential nexus and rough proportionality to the proposed activity. In its latest takings case, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, the Court expanded the Nollan/Dolan test to monetary exactions, yet failed to distinguish whether it applies to both adjudicative and legislatively imposed conditions. This Note argues that local governments and lower courts should adopt California's approach, applying heightened scrutiny only to those monetary exactions that are imposed on an ad hoc basis. This Note further argues that this framework will reduce coercion, strengthen the political process, allow for efficient negotiation, and maintain consistency with the intent of the Court in Koontz. Finally, this Note concludes by predicting that in the near future, the Court will have to revisit the scope of Nollan/Dolan in order to provide predictability and clarity to local governments and developers across the country.