Most recent discussions of land-use law have focused on possible damage awards against local governments as a result of two Supreme Court decisions in 1987. However, most of the news for local governments has actually been good. Appellate courts have to date favored damage awards in only a few, generally egregious, cases. A variety of courts have upheld restrictive land-use controls, including some based solely on aesthetic considerations. Courts have also been friendly to tougher enforcement measures. The concept of impact fees has enjoyed more recent play in the literature than in the courts, while the friendly treatment of linkage requirements in the literature has not been supported by the courts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alterman, Rachelle
. 1988. Evaluating linkage and beyond: Letting the windfall recapture genie out of the exactions bottle. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law34: 3-50.
2.
Andrew, Christine I.
, and Dwight H. Merriam. 1988. Defensible linkage. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 2: 199-209.
3.
Barnebey, Mark P.
, Tom MacRostie, Gary J. Schoennauer, George T. Simpson, and Jan Winters. 1988. Paying for growth: Community approaches to development impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 1: 18-28.
4.
Best, Robert K.1988. New constitutional standards for land use regulation: Portents of Nollan and First English Church. Institute on Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain 1988, 6-1 to 6-28. Dallas: Southwestern Legal Foundation.
5.
Bozung, Linda J.1984. Transferable development rights: Compensation for owners of restricted property. In 1984 Zoning and Planning Law Handbook, 207-221. New York: Clark Boardman.
6.
Callies, David L.1988. Property rights: Are there any left?The Urban Lawyer20, 3: 597-645.
7.
Callies, David L.1984. A requiem for public purpose. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest36, 6: 16-17.
8.
Cobb, Rodney L.1988. Portable signs: Law and regulations. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest40, 4: 3-7.
DeGrove, John M.1988. Critical area programs in Florida: Creative balancing of growth and the environment. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law34: 51-98.
11.
Dunford, Richard W.1981. Saving farmland, the King County program. Journal of Soil & Water Conservation36, 1: 19-21.
12.
Falik, William A.
, and Anna C. Shimko. 1988. The takings nexus: The Supreme Court forges a new direction in land use jurisprudence. Real Property, Probate and Trust Journal23, 1: 1-46.
13.
Freilich, Robert H.
, and Stephen P. Chinn. 1988a. Finetuning the taking equation: Applying it to development exactions, Part I. Land Use Law 6 Zoning Digest40, 2: 3-9.
14.
Freilich, Robert H.
, and Stephen P. Chinn. 1988b. Finetuning the taking equation: Apply-138 Journal of Planning Literature ing it to development exactions, Part II. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest40, 3: 3-6.
15.
Guskind, Robert
. 1987. Takings stir up a storm. Planning53, 9 (September): 5-10.
16.
Hare, Patrick
. 1988. A Peter Pan suburb grows up. Planning54, 2 (February): 24-27.
17.
Hausrath, Linda A.1988. Economic basis for linking jobs and housing in San Francisco. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 2: 210-216.
18.
Hiebert, Jerry N.1988. Practical applications of impact fees to transportation facilities. In Institute on Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain 1988, 3-1 to 3-16. Dallas: Southwestern Legal Foundation.
19.
Huffman, Forrest E., Jr.
, Arthur C. Nelson, Marc T. Smith, and Michael A. Stegman. 1988. Who bears the burden of development impact fees?Journal of the American Planning Association54, 1: 49-55.
20.
Huffman, Forrest E., Jr.
, and Marc T. Smith. 1988. Market effects of office development linkage fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 2: 217-224.
21.
Lillydahl, Jane H.
, Arthur C. Nelson, Timothy V. Ramis, Antero Rivasplata, and Steven R. Schell. 1988. The need for a standard state impact fee enabling act. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 1: 7-17.
22.
Mandelker, Daniel R.
, and William R. Ewald. 1988. Street graphics and the law. Rev. ed.Chicago: American Planning Association.
23.
Melious, Jean O.1988. Growth management by local initiative: "Grass roots" planning in California. Land Use Law & Zoning Digest40, 5: 3-7.
24.
Mixon, John
. 1988. Compensation claims against local governments for excessive land-use regulations: A proposal for more efficient state level adjudication. The Urban Lawyer20, 3: 675-733.
25.
Morgan, Terry D.1988. The effect of state legislation on the law of impact fees, with special emphasis on Texas legislation. Institute on Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain 1988, 7-1 to 7-34. Dallas: Southwestern Legal Foundation.
26.
Nicholas, James C.
, and Arthur C. Nelson. 1988. Determining the appropriate development impact fee using the rational nexus test. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 1: 56-66.
27.
Peiser, Richard
. 1988. Calculating equity-neutral water and sewer impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 1: 38-48.
28.
Pizor, Peter J.1986. Making TDR work: A study of program implementation. Journal of the American Planning Association52, 2: 203-211.
29.
Rose, Jerome G.1988. Creeping incrementalism and cumulative synergism: New Jersey's approach to statewide and regional planning and control of development. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law34: 133-172.
30.
Salsich, Peter W., Jr.1988. Keystone Bituminous Coal, First English and Nollan: A framework for accommodation?Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law34: 173-202.
31.
Siemon, Charles L.
, and Wendy U. Larsen. 1988. The taking issue trilogy: The beginning of the end?Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law33: 169-202.
32.
Stroud, Nancy
. 1988. Legal considerations of impact fees. Journal of the American Planning Association54, 1: 29-37.
33.
Taub, Theodore C.1988. Exactions, linkages, and regulatory takings: The developer's perspective. The Urban Lawyer20, 3: 515-596.
34.
Taylor, E. Allen, Jr.1988. How to develop and use impact fees successfully. In Institute on Planning, Zoning and Eminent Domain 1988, 1 1-1 to 11-23. Dallas: Southwestern Legal Foundation.
35.
Weinstein, Alan C.1987. The Renton (sic) decision: A new standard for adult business regulation. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law32: 91-122.
36.
Ziegler, Edward H., Jr.1987. Sexually oriented businesses, the First Amendment, and the Supreme Court's 1985-86 term: The new prerogatives of local control. Washington University Journal of Urban and Contemporary Law32: 123-148.
