To Bargain or Not to Bargain? A Response to Bargaining for Development Post-Koontz

Abstract

In this essay, Dean Saxer responds to Sean F. Nolon’s Bargaining for Development Post-Koontz: How the Supreme Court Invaded Local Government. The Supreme Court held, in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, that proposed local government monetary exactions from property owners to permit land development are subject to the same heightened scrutiny test as imposed physical exactions. In his article, Nolon explores whether such heightened scrutiny for proposed exactions will chill permit negotiations between local governments and developers. Nolon predicts that the Koontz decision will “impede developers’ ability to improve their projects in the development review process.” Saxer responds that the consequences of this decision are not as dire as predicted by Nolon and that developers and local officials will continue to work together for the benefit of both the developer and the community.

Keywords: Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, Sean Nolon, land use, land development, monetary assessments, impact fees, local regulation, land use regulation, local governments, municipalities, land-use boards, permits, permit negotiations