Knowledge (XXG)

Exaction

Source 📝

31:
where a condition for development is imposed on a parcel of land that requires the developer to mitigate anticipated negative impacts of the development. The rationale for imposing the exaction is to offset the costs, defined broadly in economic terms, of the development to the municipality.
93:, the court added 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—that is, that the exaction is not excessive to compensate for the 78:
over the dry sand area of the beach as a condition for development, because they found that the easement was not closely related enough to fighting the psychological barrier to beach access that the development would present.
131:
apply even when a permit is denied because the applicant refuses to agree to an exaction, and even when the exaction consists of a payment of money, rather than a dedication of land.
119: 97:
the proposed land use would impose. This "rough proportionality" must be shown by an individualized determination, with the burden on the government to show its evidence. In
53: 70:, 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 188: 66: 49: 45: 261: 136: 256: 140:, the Supreme Court of the United States expanded exactions to apply to both adjudicative and legislative actions. 199: 89: 17: 102: 101:, the court required compensation for an exaction that required donation of land for a public 28: 106: 36:, which are direct payments to local governments instead of conditions on development. 250: 94: 33: 105:
and bike path, because a private greenway would have been sufficient and the
48:
has identified several criteria for identifying when an exaction becomes a
75: 109:
was not specific enough about the benefits of the bike path.
120:
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
74:the court required compensation for a public 8: 123:, the court clarified that the standards of 193:University of Florida Levin College of Law" 161:Cases and Text on Property, Fifth Edition. 163:Aspen Publishers, New York: 2004, p. 1221 137:Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California 16:For other uses of the word "exact", see 149: 67:Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 113:Permit denials and monetary exactions 52:that requires compensation under the 7: 46:Supreme Court of the United States 14: 1: 278: 191:Exactions and Impact Fees. 15: 177:. Routledge. p. 246. 32:Exactions are similar to 175:Encyclopedia of the City 262:Takings Clause case law 90:Dolan v. City of Tigard 18:exact (disambiguation) 173:Caves, R. W. (2004). 83:Rough proportionality 40:Exactions and takings 27:is a concept in US 257:Real property law 29:real property law 269: 241: 238: 232: 229: 223: 220: 214: 213: 211: 210: 204: 198:. Archived from 197: 185: 179: 178: 170: 164: 154: 277: 276: 272: 271: 270: 268: 267: 266: 247: 246: 245: 244: 240:Casner, p. 1219 239: 235: 231:Casner, p. 1208 230: 226: 222:Casner, p. 1221 221: 217: 208: 206: 202: 195: 187: 186: 182: 172: 171: 167: 155: 151: 146: 115: 85: 62: 60:Essential nexus 54:Fifth Amendment 42: 21: 12: 11: 5: 275: 273: 265: 264: 259: 249: 248: 243: 242: 233: 224: 215: 180: 165: 148: 147: 145: 142: 114: 111: 107:City of Tigard 84: 81: 61: 58: 41: 38: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 274: 263: 260: 258: 255: 254: 252: 237: 234: 228: 225: 219: 216: 205:on 2011-07-16 201: 194: 192: 184: 181: 176: 169: 166: 162: 159: 156:Casner, A.J. 153: 150: 143: 141: 139: 138: 132: 130: 126: 122: 121: 112: 110: 108: 104: 100: 96: 92: 91: 82: 80: 77: 73: 69: 68: 59: 57: 55: 51: 47: 39: 37: 35: 30: 26: 19: 236: 227: 218: 207:. Retrieved 200:the original 190: 183: 174: 168: 160: 157: 152: 135: 133: 128: 124: 118: 116: 98: 88: 86: 71: 65: 63: 43: 24: 22: 95:externality 34:impact fees 251:Categories 209:2010-07-21 144:References 103:greenway 76:easement 25:exaction 158:et al. 125:Nollan 72:Nollan 50:taking 203:(PDF) 196:(PDF) 129:Dolan 99:Dolan 127:and 44:The 134:In 117:In 87:In 64:In 23:An 253:: 56:. 212:. 189:" 20:.

Index

exact (disambiguation)
real property law
impact fees
Supreme Court of the United States
taking
Fifth Amendment
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
easement
Dolan v. City of Tigard
externality
greenway
City of Tigard
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California
"Exactions and Impact Fees. University of Florida Levin College of Law"
the original
Categories
Real property law
Takings Clause case law

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.