About Amerisurv| Contact    
Magazine | Newsletter    
Flickr Photos | Advertise    
HomeNewsNewsletterAmerisurv DirectoryJobsStoreAuthorsHistoryArchivesBlogVideosEvents

Sponsored By

Software Reviews
Continuing Series
An RTN expert provides everything you need to know about network-corrected real-time GNSS observations.
Click Here to begin the series,
or view the Article PDF's Here
76-PageFlip Compilation
of the entire series
Test Yourself

Got Answers?
Test your knowledge with NCEES-level questions.
  Start HERE
Meet the Authors
Check out our fine lineup of writers. Each an expert in his or her field.
Wow Factor
Sponsored By

Product Reviews
Partner Sites







Spatial Media LLC properties




Home arrow Archives   The American Surveyor     

Vantage Point: Exactions versus Extortion Print E-mail
Written by Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM   
Thursday, 20 June 2013

A 389Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

Late Breaking News: For those who would like to read the Supreme Court's decision in the Koontz case, just issued 6/25/2013, a preliminary version is on available on line at http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-1447

Please note that this opinion is subject to formal revision (to correct typographical or other formal errors) before publication in the United States Report. However, the outcome will not change.

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court has reversed and remanded the Florida Supreme Court case, basically finding in favor of Koontz and against the land[use exactions imposed by the St. Johns River Water Management District:
"We hold that the government’s demand for property from a land-use permit applicant must satisfy the requirements of Nollan and Dolan even when the government denies the permit and even when its demand is for money. The Court expresses no view on the merits of petitioner’s claim that respondent’s actions here failed to comply with the principles set forth in this opinion and those two cases. The Florida Supreme Court’s judgment is reversed, and this case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."

The dissenting opinion, written by Justice Kagan and joined by her three dissenting colleagues, provides clear and valuable insight into the reasoning on both sides of the matter, and should be read as well as the majority view.
  WL, June 26, 2013

The process of land development often involves a certain amount of give and take. While we like to think that in our society this translates to "cooperation" and a bit of "compromise," the "take" part sometimes culminates in claims of inverse condemnation and rights to compensation. As this is being set to print, the federal Supreme Court is about to issue its opinion (any day now...) on a Florida land development matter it heard in January. Depending upon the outcome, it's possible we could see some big changes in how the permit-issuing game is played.

At the outset of a series of 13 appellate and federal actions, the property of Florida landowner Coy A. Koontz, Sr. was zoned commercial in front and residential in the rear. His 14.9-acre tract had been affected by many legislated land-use restrictions since Koontz bought the land in 1971, and his quest to develop part of his land meant he needed a permit to dredge 3.4 acres of wetland and a wetland resource management permit.

Florida passed its Water Resources Act within a year after his purchase, and in 1985 passed a Wetlands Protection Act, each statute giving water management districts jurisdiction over use of privately owned wetlands and uplands that were suitable for fish and wildlife habitat. This is the reason Koontz had to apply to the St. Johns River Water Management District for permits: all but 1.4 acres of his land had been legislated into the Riparian Habitat Protection Zone managed by this District. The management and storage of surface waters are significant factors here because the property is on a tributary of the Econlockhatchee River that is currently identified by the District as being part of a designated hydrologic basin.

If a landowner knows his land is already legislatively restricted, what kinds of expectations should he have regarding development? One judge (dissenting in 5 So. 3d 8 at 16, 2009) pointed out that Koontz conceded he had no right to a development permit but that "there is no harm in asking."

The District informed Koontz that for approval of the requested permits, he would need to deed the remainder of his undeveloped land into conservation status and also do some off-site mitigation (with two alternatives presented for the mitigation requirement). Alternatively, the District would require Koontz to reduce his development to one acre and deed-restrict the entire balance of his land to a conservation area. While Koontz agreed to the conservation aspect of Option 1, he refused its off-site mitigation component and he rejected the allowance of only one acre of development per Option 2, so his permit applications were rejected.

Now we need to sift through the many legal actions (since 1998) to find definitions of the terms hurled between the parties. The District claimed it was only asking for an "exaction," while Koontz termed it "extortion." In a concurring opinion from the Florida Court of Appeal's decision of January 2009, the legal distinctions are compared to the landmark cases on which Koontz (and then for the next 15 years his son, as his father passed away after the first case) based his primary arguments. Those cases focus on (but are not limited to) Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (483 US 825, 1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (512 US 374, 1994).

In Nollan, the Coastal Commission's condition for issuing a rebuilding permit was that the landowner would have to grant a public easement across his property to access the water. The Supreme Court struck down this condition, finding that it did not have an "essential nexus" to advancing a legitimate state interest and instead constituted an "out-and-out plan of extortion." (483 U.S. 825 at 837) In the Dolan case, Tigard had told Mrs. Dolan that if she wanted to expand her existing corner hardware store, she would have to deed a strip of her land to the city for a public bicycle path. She argued no one would be riding a bicycle to pick up plumbing fixtures at her store. Here the Supreme Court applied the test of "essential nexus" from Nollan to compel the city to prove two things: "(1) that an `essential nexus' exists between a legitimate state interest and the permit condition exacted by the government; and (2) whether the degree of the exactions demanded by the government are `roughly proportional' to the projected impact of the proposed development." (Koontz, 861 So. 2d 1267 at 1270)

These concepts of "essential nexus" and "roughly proportional" are key to the arguments of both sides. Returning to the 2009 concurring opinion we find that "exaction" does not have a single definition, slightly complicating the matter, but we can generalize the meaning as land-use decisions that set conditions for approval of development based on dedication (whether fee, easement, improvement, or other) of property to public use. No matter the definition, to decide if such an exaction amounts to a taking of private rights (as in Nollan and Dolan), the question to be answered is if the exaction would be a "taking" if it were unrelated to the development rather than being part of negotiation for issuing a permit.

The District argues that Nollan and Dolan standards for constitutional takings do not apply to Koontz' situation as the District did not actually take any of Koontz' property. If he were to argue a taking, he should have to comply with District conditions first and sue after. This is a core issue: can there be a taking when a landowner says "NO" to exactions? Or, as Koontz argues, are these "unconstitutional conditions" and "extortionate demands" imposed on him before he can acquire the permits he seeks? There is much discussion about the off-site mitigation, its location and purpose. While amusing at times (one witness justified the mitigation condition saying, "five or six miles is not a long way for a bird to fly" 861 So. 2d 1267 at 1270), offsetting impacts of development with an eye to the larger community (including environmental health) is a serious matter.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Koontz, the standards of Nollan and Dolan will hold government liable for improper takings when refusing to issue development permits on the basis of non-compliance with exactions, and can further apply to non-real property exactions. On the other hand, if the Court upholds the District's position, these standards will continue to apply only to actual takings of real property from landowners. One of the District's arguments is that expanded application of standards isn't necessary due to other safeguards already in place to protect developers and landowners from government corruption.

Wendy Lathrop is licensed as a Professional Land Surveyor in NJ, PA, DE, and MD, and has been involved since 1974 in surveying projects ranging from construction to boundary to environmental land use disputes. She is a Professional Planner in NJ, and a Certified Floodplain Manager through ASFPM.

A 389Kb PDF of this article as it appeared in the magazine—complete with images—is available by clicking HERE

< Prev

 American Surveyor Recent Articles
Marc Cheves, PS 
Editorial: A Great Year to be a Surveyor
Some magazines have what are called "theme" issues. That is, most of the content is focused on one particular subject. In my 22+ years of survey magazine publishing, my philosophy has always been to have a little bit of everything in each issue, thereby eliminating the possibility that ....
Read the Article
Jason E. Foose, PS 
Decided Guidance: Case Examinations: Halverson v. Deerwood Village
Whew! We really beat the snot out of Bryant v. Blevins and practical locations. Well this month we're back on new case that hit the Minnesota Supreme Court's docket in 1982. We've got the familiar gymnastics of jurisprudence featuring an extraordinary array of flying rope stretchers ...
Read the Article
Michel Philips 
Extreme Environment Surveying
A Franco-Chilean team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 rugged handheld for marine cave surveying, gathering data to classify the inaccessible northern half of Madre de Dios for UNESCO World Heritage. The team of cave divers used the Nautiz X8 ....
Read the Article
Erik Dahlberg 
The Original Green Engineers
Sometimes, it's best just to leave things as you found them. That's the lesson shared by Dr. Richard Miksad and his students at the University of Virginia. As a result of studies covering nearly a decade, Miksad's teams have developed detailed ....
Read the Article
Dave Lindell, PS 
Test Yourself 49: No Dimensions
In square A-C-D-B with side S, C-E is tangent to the semicircle Q1 with diameter B-D. Q2 is the inscribed circle of A-C-E. The tangent to Q1 and Q2 meets the sides of the square at F and H and intersects C-E at t G. Q3 is the inscribed circle of C-G-H. What is the ratio of the radii of circles ....
Read the Article
Jerry Penry, PS 
Discovery on Grizzly Peak
When First Lieutenant Montgomery M. Macomb arrived in Carson City, Nevada, from Washington D.C., on July 28, 1878, his assigned survey crew from the 4th Artillery was waiting and ready for the new field season. At age 25, Macomb was the leader ....
Read the Article
Wendy Lathrop, PS, CFM 
Vantage Point: Fighting City Hall Over Land
Once upon a time (1989 to be exact) in a place not so far away from where I live, a man (Francis Galdo) bought a home across the street from a vacant parcel owned by the City of Philadelphia. That parcel, along with others, had been acquired by condemnation back in 1974 subsequent to a 1956 ....
Read the Article
Patrick C. Garner, PS 
Book Review: Boundary Retracement: Processes and Procedures
When I was in my mid-twenties and learning the honorable profession of land surveying, I was lucky to be guided by a mentor who would grab a book off his office shelf and say, "Every surveyor should have a copy of this!" The first example he waved at me was Davis, Foote and Kelly's Surveying ....
Read the Article


Amerisurv Exclusive Online-only Article ticker
Featured Amerisurv Events
List Your Event Here
contact Amerisurv


Javad Intros
Total Solution

press [at] amerisurv.com
Online Internet Content


News Feeds

Subscribe to Amerisurv news & updates via RSS or get our Feedburn
xml feed

Need Help? See this RSS Tutorial

Historic Maps

post a job
Reach our audience of Professional land surveyors and Geo-Technology professionals with your GeoJobs career ad. Feel free to contact us if you need additional information.


Social Bookmarks

Amerisurv on Facebook 

Amerisurv LinkedIn Group 

Amerisurv Flickr Photos 

Amerisurv videos on YouTube 



The American Surveyor © All rights reserved / Privacy Statement
Spatial Media LLC
7820B Wormans Mill Road, #236
Frederick MD 21701
301-695-1538 - fax