Koontz Redux: Where We Are and What's Left

Abstract

As reported in last month's issue of Planning & Environmental Law, on June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court rendered its long‐anticipated decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, ending the considerable speculation about what the Court would do after taking the case up for review. Writing for a five‐justice majority, Associate Justice Alito held (1) that a government's demand for money or land from a land use permit applicant must satisfy the nexus and proportionality requirements of the Court's previous Nollan and Dolan decisions even when it denies the permit, and (2) the government's demand for property from a land use permit applicant must satisfy these Nollan and Dolan requirements even if the demand is for money—like impact fees, in‐lieu fees, and other money exactions—rather than a dedication of an interest in real property, like an easement. In holding that monetary exactions must satisfy the nexus and proportionality requirements of Nollan and Dolan, the court explained the required direct link between the government's demand and a specific parcel of real property: the property interest is the landowner's parcel for which government development permission is sought, not the character of the exaction as an interest in real property, as many have urged and some lower courts have held.