|
CRC Defends
Community Protections in Congress
Legislation proposed by big developers
this Congress would threaten community protections across
the country. Below is a letter Community Rights Counsel
sent to the congressional committee considering the bill.
September 15, 1999
The Honorable Charles T. Canady, Chairman
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Mel Watt, Ranking Member
House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representatives Canady and Watt:
Community
Rights Counsel (CRC) stands with the
International
Municipal Lawyers Association, the National Association
of Counties, the National League of
Cities, and many other organizations
that represent the interests of local communities in
strongly opposing H.R.
2372, the Private Property Rights
Implementation Act of 1999.
As a non-profit, public interest law firm
that assists local governments in defending community
protections, CRC is uniquely positioned to assess the
merits of H.R. 2372. The bill is designed to allow
developers and others to sidestep important land use
procedures and sue local communities in federal court far
earlier in the land use planning process. As a result, it
would give developers a significant new club in their
negotiations with local officials: the threat of early,
expensive federal court litigation.
In many areas, developers and other
landowners already hold the upper hand in land-use
disputes and run roughshod over the concerns of
neighboring property owners and the community as a whole.
H.R. 2372's one-size-fits-all mandate would further shift
the balance of power away from local communities to
developers and other landowners.
Key portions of the bill are plainly
unconstitutional. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in City of Monterey v. Del Monte
Dunes at Monterey, Ltd., 119 S. Ct. 1624 (1999),
reaffirms that state and local government action does not
violate the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment unless
and until the claimant seeks and is denied compensation
for any taking in state court. By purporting to allow
takings claimants to bypass state courts, the bill
contravenes the Court's repeated interpretations of the
Fifth Amendment, creates the false promise of an
immediate federal forum, and will lead to litigation
chaos if and when those provisions of the bill are
ignored or invalidated by federal courts as in conflict
with the Constitution.
By prohibiting federal courts from
abstaining in many cases involving real property, the
bill disrespects the role of state courts in interpreting
state law and unfairly creates special rights for
property owners unavailable to other constitutional
litigants. The bill also would send to the federal courts
the very cases those courts have repeatedly declared
unfit for judicial resolution.
If land use procedures need improvement
in particular communities, the solution is to reform
those laws at the local level. Many state and local
governments are doing just that through permit
streamlining laws and other reforms. But H.R. 2372's
all-wisdom-resides-in-Washington approach would hurt
local communities across the country. The bill would
improperly and needlessly federalize one of the most
quintessentially local issues that affect local
communities and should be rejected.
Sincerely,
Timothy
J. Dowling
Chief Counsel
Community Rights Counsel |
