SJ Quinney College of Law, University of Utah
  •  
  •  
 

Abstract

This Article addresses one of the lingering questions following the Supreme Court’s decision in Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District. In that land use case, the Court held that proposed local government monetary exactions from property owners to permit land development were subject to the same heightened scrutiny test as imposed physical exactions. The Court left unanswered the question of how broadly this heightened scrutiny should be applied to other monetary obligations imposed by the government. The Article argues that “in-lieu” exactions that are individually assessed as part of the permitting process should be treated differently than the impact fees that are developed through the legislative process and are applied equally to all developers without regard to a specific project. Accordingly, Koontz’s application should be limited to “the special context of land-use exactions” during a permitting process rather than be extended to all regulatory monetary obligations.

Included in

Land Use Law Commons

Share

COinS