Fairness matters

From the Law of the Land blog of Patty Salkin (Albany), "4th Circuit Court of Appeals Finds Regulatory Takings Allegation Satisfies Ripeness Standard Where Further Administrative Review Would be Futile":

In a somewhat complicated fact pattern, Acorn Land, LLC (Acorn) purchased a tract of land in Baltimore County in a residential zone. ...

I agree it's complicated, so I'll just give you the paragraph on how this action was ripe.

... To present a ripe regulatory takings claim, the plaintiff must demonstrate that: (1) the government entity charged with implementing the regulations in question has issued a “final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the property at issue,” and (2) the plaintiff has sought and been denied just compensation through available and adequate state procedures for seeking just compensation. Williamson County Reg’l Planning Comm’ n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U.S. 172, 186, 195 (1985). As a result, the court looks at the issue of whether Acorn satisfied Williamson’s first, “final decision” prong. The court found that Acorn was subject to unfair and unreasonable zoning procedures when the Council denied Acorn’s petition, without explanation, after the petition met the County’s objective criteria for amending property classification. Further, the Circuit Court for Baltimore County went so far as to deem such action arbitrary and capricious. Despite the circuit court’s order to the Council, they still denied Acorn’s petition by rezoning the property. Therefore, the court held that under these circumstances “it would be both futile and unfair to require Acorn to jump through any additional administrative hoops to obtain a ‘final decision.” As a result of this [] Williamson’s first prong is satisfied and the takings claim is ripe for review.

EMM