The Pacific Legal Foundation is going to court in California over a city’s demand for $55,000 in fees for a landowner to put up a modest home on his own land.
“Under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, no government agency may take private property for a public use without paying just compensation,” a new court filing in U.S. district court in California charges.
“As a corollary to this rule, a government agency imposing a land-use permit condition that requires the dedication of private property, including money, ‘must make some sort of individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent to the impact of the proposed development,’” it continues. “Specifically, the agency must carry the burden of showing that the exaction bears an ‘essential nexus’ and ‘rough proportionality’ to the public impacts of the proposed project, lest the exaction be nothing more than an ‘out-and-out plan of extortion.’”
The fight is being brought on behalf of Wesley Yu, who sued East Palo Alto over its housing ordinance that purports to force property owners to “surrender their land or pay steep fees just to build homes on their own property.”
The city’s demand is that Yu build an “affordable housing” unit on his own property with a permanent deed restriction.
Or, in the alternative, he can pay $54,891 in “fees” on his “modest home and guest unit.”
“The government can’t hold building permits hostage and force families to choose between giving up control of their property or paying unconstitutional fees,” said David Deerson, an attorney with Pacific Legal Foundation. “Wesley just wants to build a home where his daughter can play safely and grandparents can visit comfortably—that’s the American Dream. Instead, they are facing government extortion.”
The legal team explained Yu and his wife live with their 3-year-old daughter in a small, 1,000-square-foot home in East Palo Alto.
They need more room.
So they proposed building, on an adjacent lot they own, a new family home and detached accessory dwelling unit.
“The lawsuit argues the ordinance violates constitutional property rights established in Supreme Court cases including Cedar Point v. Hassid and Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. The Yu family’s project would increase housing supply, not reduce it, yet the city demands mitigation as if the family were causing harm,” the legal team charged.
The case, in federal court in San Francisco, seeks a court judgement that the city ordinances are unconstitutional conditions, an injunction prohibiting enforcement of the rules, and an award of costs and fees.