Please share your thoughts about the following two statements. Whether you agree or disagree share your opinions about it.

1. Koontz vs. St. John's River Water Management- 570 US 595 (2013)

Facts:Coy Koontz owned property in the Florida wetlands and wanted to develop a portion of his property, which required a permit from the St. Johns River Water Management District. The purpose of requiring a permit was to offset environmental damages caused by the development. Koontz first offered a proposal where he would deed to the District about three quarters of his property for conservation purposes. The District rejected the proposal and then proposed an alternative, which included Koontz reducing the size of his development or hiring contractors to improve wetlands property owned by the District. Koontz rejected the District's offer and sued arguing that the District violated a Florida state law that "provides money damages for agency action that is an 'unreasonable exercise of the state's police power constituting a taking without just compensation.'"

Procedure: A trial court found that the District's actions were not appropriate because it failed the requirements established in the Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n case and the Dolan v. City of Tigard case. These cases are important because the Supreme Court found that a government cannot set a condition on approving a land-use permit to an owner to take their property unless there is a "nexus and rough proportionality between the government's demand and the effects of the proposed land use." A District Court of Appeal further affirmed the trial court's ruling, but the Florida State Supreme Court reversed the rulings.

Issues: The question facing the Supreme Court is if the government is held liable if they don't approve a permit, but demand that the condition be fulfilled before the government will issue the permit. In addition, the second question before the court is if the condition or the taking does not include the transfer of property, but rather paying money.

Holding:In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the Florida State Supreme Court's ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in favor Koontz and argued that the District did not meet the requirements set forth in the Nollan case and Dolan case.

Reasoning:Justice Alito wrote the majority opinion, which Justices Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas joined. Alito wrote in the majority opinion that the requirements established in the Nollan and Dolan case need to be met, because if they are not met, local governments and/or local agencies may evade meeting the requirements and constitute an illegal taking of property. Alito elaborated on the precedent established in the Nollan and Dolan cases writing that the rulings in those cases allow the "government to condition approval of a permit on the dedication of property to the public so long as there is a 'nexus' and 'rough proportionality' between the property that the government demands and the social costs of the applicant's proposal" (p. 8). Alito also indicated that it did not matter if the local government or local agency approved or denied the permit because placing a condition or demand to be met before the permit is approved places a burden on the owner's property rights. In regards to monetary exactions, Alito wrote that the monetary obligation placed a burden on Koontz ownership of his land, which is the "direct link" between the District's demand and Koontz property. As Alito referenced, this direct link was relevant to the requirements established in the Nollan and Dolan cases because there was the risk that the government, in this case the District, may have potentially used "substantial power and discretion" to approve a land-use permit that did not meet the "nexus" and "rough proportionality" test.

Concurring/dissenting opinions:Kagan wrote the dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg, Breyer and Sotomayor. In the dissenting opinion, Kagan agreed with the majority that it did not matter if the local government approved or denied the permit. But, she wrote that she disagreed with the second question, writing that monetary exactions and conditionally-approved land-use permits are not applicable in this case. Kagan wrote that the Nollan and Dolan case are pertinent when there is the taking of real property, but not when an expenditure of money was present because of the precedent set in the Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel case. As a result, Kagan further explained at the Nollan and Dolan standards were not applicable in this case. Kagan argued that the ramifications of the majority's opinion to include monetary exactions as a taking could be drastic as she wrote that "it threatens to subject a vast array of land-use regulations, applied in States and localities throughout the country, to heightened constitutional scrutiny" (p. 2). She further argued that Koontz never agreed to the District's demands, which means that his argument for compensation under the Fifth Amendment is invalid.

Implications/So what?:This decision was significant as it limited the government's ability to approve and issue land-use permits, since the majority included that the monetary exactions were included in placing a burden on an owner's property rights as it pertained to demands. Singh wrote that the Supreme Court's ruling broadened the scope of property rights which can result in increased litigation against local governments and local agencies (2013). The ruling also affects the discretion afforded to local governments and local agencies when issuing, approving and/or denying land-use permits. Kagan further explained that the new limitations will diminish the "flexibility of state and local governments to take the most routine actions to enhance their communities" (p. 9). For public administrators, especially those working in local government or local agencies, this case has legal and managerial implications as it is necessary for public administrators to be aware of how the conditions and demands for land-use permitting have changed to ensure that their governmental entity is not infringing on an owner's property rights. When a "taking" occurs, the Supreme Court clearly outlined that it is also essential for public administrators to meet the Nollan and Dolan standards.

2. Facts

The Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District case was concerned with land use regulation and the permissibility of permitting or payment as conditions for using land as a landowner wishes to. The petitioner, Coy Koontz, offered to grant a conservation easement of significant size to the St. Johns River WAter Management District in exchange for being allowed to develop part of his property which is designated as wetland and is therefore environmentally protected from development. The District instead required that he reduce the size of his planned development and increase the size of the conservation easement offered as well as paying for improvements to other land owned by the District.

Procedure

Koontz sued on the basis of a state law allowing property owners to recover money when an unconstitutional taking occurs under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. His argument was based on the decisions in Nolan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard which established that the District should have sufficient justification and proportionality in the conditions and denial of permits for land use. The trial court denied this and Koontz appealed. The Florida Supreme Court dismissed because they believed that a takings claim couldn't be brought regarding the District's conduct. Koontz appealed the case to the Supreme Court which took it.

Issue, Holding, & Reasoning

The question facing the court is: does the refusal to grant a permit unless a landowner agrees to pay for the land use in some way constitute an unconstitutional taking by the government? The Supreme Court answered yes to this question in its ruling. It held that the "unconstitutional conditions" doctrine applies to this case in that the government may not coerce people to give up their constitutional rights. They determined that in this case, the government requiring Koontz to pay for work on District land in exchange for the granting of the permit to develop his own land constitutes a taking of property without just compensation. The Nollan and Dolan rulings required government conditions for denying a permit to be ones which substantially furthered government interests. The condition of the District that Koontz invest personal resources in improving District lands was deemed not to constitute a substantial enough improvement to justify the denial of the permit.

Significance

This bears substantially on the purview of public administrators to exact conditions of resource-investment from landowners in exchange for land use permits. This is a large curtailment of the tools available to public administrators when negotiating land-use permits with landowners. Oftentimes, a meaningful investment of a landowners' resources is a very useful bargaining chip in getting the best outcome for the public when sacrificing something like, in this case, a wetland, which is of enormous ecological and flood-resistance use to a region. Having lost this tool is quite a blow to the power of public administrators to control land use for the public good, instead prioritizing private property owners rights over the rights of the public to good community land-use practices.