Supremes End El Dorado’s Gilded Grab

Weaponizing land use laws to satisfy pols’ lust for taxpayers’ gold took a hit when Supreme Court said a California county couldn’t charge a homeowner a $23,000 “traffic mitigation” fee to build on his land.

A retired George Sheetz lost TWICE in the Golden State’s lower courts in his suit against El Dorado County’s governing body which tried to bilk him for a building permit to build his new home. The enacted tariff supposedly would help cover some unspecified increased county-wide traffic costs. As the Fox News coverage noted, the Supremes voted unanimously to reign in “fees governments issue – even those imposed by a legislature” if they aren’t “based on actual adverse impacts.” In other words, for example, “building permit fees can’t cost more than any damage the public would face” from a given development.” Mr. Sheetz’s attorney was blunt about it all: “Holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion” and a blatant violation of the /Fifth Amendment’s prohibition against a government taking private property without just compensation.

The local government had argued that its traffic impact mitigation fee was “similar to fees that fund parks & police departments.” The lower courts sided with the county on the ground the traffic impact fee was issued by an elected local legislature rather than mere bureaucrats. But the Supremes saw it differently. “In sum, there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators,” wrote Justice Amy Coney Barrett. But, don’t expect the money grabbers to stop grabbing. Said a county Dpty Chief, the Court’s opinion was based on the narrow issue of greed & “explicitly leaves open” whether local governments can continue to impose REASONABLE permitting conditions (including impact fees) on new development under their traditional land use authority.”

Davd Soul