City responds to PLF’s CA Supreme Court amicus brief in City of Perris v. Stamper
Recently we received a response to our amicus brief, filed in City of Perris v. Stamper, a case pending before the California Supreme Court. The National Federal of Independent Business joined us on the brief, which argued that cities can’t avoid paying fair market value for private property seized through creative general plan amendments. We also argued that before the government requires someone to dedicate his or her property to a public use, it must show that the landowner’s impacts would create demands on public infrastructure that justified the dedication.
We were somewhat surprised that the City responded to our brief,which suggests that it is concerned the court may accept our arguments. The City’s brief distorted several facts—notably, that the City wasn’t going to give the landowner credit for his dedication for the future development of his land. But the brief increases the visibility of our arguments as the Court considers the case. Now that the briefing is complete, we are waiting for the court to set a date for oral argument.
What to read next
PLF asks the U.S. Supreme Court to rule that there is no “legislative exception” to the unconstitutional conditions doctrine
It seems that some governments and courts prefer to treat Supreme Court precedent as an option, rather than a requirement. The Supreme Court has ruled—twice—that it’s unconstitutional for government to … ›