본문 바로가기
  • Home

Development Impact Fee and Takings in the U.S.

  • Public Land Law Review
  • Abbr : KPLLR
  • 2014, 66(), pp.27-42
  • Publisher : Korean Public Land Law Association
  • Research Area : Social Science > Law

JEONG, HA MYOUNG 1

1경북대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

The concept of exaction is allowed in the U.S. It is a condition for development, which is imposed on a parcel of land that requires the developer to mitigate anticipated negative impacts of the development. One of forms of exactions is impact fees, which are direct payments to local governments instead of conditions on development. The Supreme Court of the United States has identified several criteria for identifying when an exaction becomes a taking that requires compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Court ruled that an exaction is legitimate if it shares an “essential nexus” with the reasons that would allow rejection of the permit altogether in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission. The Court ruled that an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use in Dolan v. City of Tigard. In 2013, the Court ruled that conditions imposed upon the issuance of a land-use permit must conform to the requirements of Nollan and, if applicable, Dolan even when the challenged condition amounts to a requirement to pay money, rather than to give up an easement over the property in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. The Court expanded takings doctrine from exaction to impact fee even though there was no direct physical invasion to developers at impact fee to protect property rights. Korean jurists might have some reference from this ruling to protect property rights at management of many development-related-duties.

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2022 are currently being built.