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

5 Pages Posted: 6 Jun 2015 Last revised: 26 Jun 2015

Date Written: 2015

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

Suggested Citation

Saxer, Shelley Ross, To Bargain or Not to Bargain? A Response to Bargaining for Development Post-Koontz (2015). Florida Law Review Forum, Vol. 67, No. 5, 2015; Pepperdine University Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2015/8. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2614683

Shelley Ross Saxer (Contact Author)

Pepperdine University School of Law ( email )

24255 Pacific Coast Highway
Malibu, CA 90263
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
46
Abstract Views
602
PlumX Metrics