Background

Property rights are the necessary precursor to the freedom to live, work, and prosper. They are woven throughout the Constitution and hold the key solutions to many social problems dominating public debate, from housing shortages to environmental pollution. Recognizing the importance of these rights, in April 2024 the Supreme Court protected the property rights of George Sheetz by requiring a local government development impact fee it imposed on Mr. Sheetz to be proportional and connected to Mr. Sheetz’s plan to put a home on his property.

This workshop seeks to build on the result of Sheetz v. County of El Dorado and chart the course of the next steps in exactions/unconstitutional-conditions law. From Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, through Dolan v. City of Tigard and Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management District, and now including Sheetz, the Supreme Court has looked to the doctrine of exactions and unconstitutional conditions to ensure property rights are protected. In doing so, it has created a constitutional bulwark protecting the right to build housing on private property, an important stick in the property rights bundle.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Sheetz  held that legislatively-imposed development-fee schedules are subject to judicial scrutiny under the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. This ruling promises to change how local and state governments extract development impact fees from property owners in exchange for building permits; and it may very well do more. This is where you come in.

We seek papers that address the questions arising from the Sheetz ruling. We welcome proposals that look at this issue from legal, economic, political, historical, and related angles, including empirical and nonempirical approaches.

Possible Topics

  1. Must a permit condition imposed by a legislative body on a category of properties be tailored with the same degree of specificity as a permit condition that targets a particular single development to be constitutional?
  2. An article exploring the Sheetz concurrences by Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh offering different arguments about the need for legislative exactions to be tailored
  3. Beyond the analysis of Koontz, is there a basis in constitutional text, history, and/or case law for holding stand-alone impact fees (as opposed to in-lieu fees) subject to the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions?
  4. How does the requirement that the government “make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development” work when evaluating a generally imposed legislative exaction?
  5. What does “essential nexus” require to be constitutional?
  6. Are there economic models that prove or disprove the claim that inclusionary zoning meets the nexus requirement of the Nollan-Dolan-Koontz-Sheetz exactions test?
  7. Does inclusionary zoning create meaningful workforce and affordable housing? Alternatively, does inclusionary zoning have a negative impact on the production of affordable housing? Empirical studies of communities with inclusionary zoning policies in place could yield meaningful information if studied.
  8. Do all inclusionary-zoning schemes rely upon Kelo v. City of New London, and if they do, then would the right inclusionary-zoning challenge have the promise of overturning Kelo?
  9. How have states limited local government’s ability to legislatively impose fees on developers, and is there empirical evidence of more and cheaper housing in the states with those limits?
  10. True or false: The weaker the nexus, the more difficult it will (or should) be for the government to establish proportionality.
  11. How do impact fees affect housing supply and affordability? What is the tradeoff between property taxes and fees?
  12. How can YIMBYs incorporate the Sheetz decision into their work and build from it to successfully encourage communities to build more housing?
  13. Besides inclusionary-zoning fees, are there other government-imposed fees on builders and developers that may violate the nexus prong of the Nollan-Dolan-Koontz-Sheetz test? What are they and why is there a lack of nexus between the fee and the demand?

Research Roundtable

Completed paper drafts are due 10 days before the date of the research roundtable but need not be in polished or publishable form. Authors will present their papers at the research roundtable that will be held at PLF’s office in Arlington, Virginia in Spring 2025. Each paper author will be expected to formally comment on others’ papers. We will cover the cost of hotel accommodation and reasonable travel expenses to the roundtable.

Honorarium and Other Support 

  • Authors of accepted papers will receive a $2,500 honorarium.
  • Authors will benefit from robust feedback on their research.
  • Papers will be posted as a working paper on the PLF SSRN page.

Research Roundtable 

  • Submit research proposals by December 2, 2024 to Stephen Davis at SDavis@pacificlegal.org
  • The proposal must describe your thesis or research question(s) and intended methodology and how your paper will contribute to the legal issues described.
  • Early proposal submission is encouraged. Proposals will be reviewed on a rolling basis, and approvals will allow authors to begin work early.
  • Submissions after December 2 may be accepted if space at the roundtable and budget permit. 

Contact Information 

  • For questions regarding the call for papers, please contact Stephen Davis.