EL DORADO COUNTY, Calif. Cris Alarcon (November 14, 2023) – In a high-stakes legal battle set to reverberate across the nation, the Supreme Court of the United States is poised to review a case that challenges the constitutionality of exorbitant permit fees for homebuilding. The case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, centers around George Sheetz, an engineering contractor and consultant in Northern California who, after purchasing a vacant lot for retirement in 2016, found himself entangled in a bureaucratic web.
George, anticipating a smooth process for obtaining a county building permit for his manufactured home, was blindsided when confronted with a staggering “traffic impact fee” exceeding $23,000. The county claimed it was a necessary charge to mitigate potential roadwork impacts resulting from his project, a claim George vehemently contested.
Undeterred by the hefty price tag, George paid the fee under protest and subsequently filed a lawsuit, contending that the fees amounted to an unconstitutional permit condition. He argues that the fees, imposed legislatively as part of a countywide land use overhaul, lacked a nexus to the actual harm caused by his development, a contention supported by Supreme Court decisions in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013).
The crux of the matter lies in the legal loophole adopted by some lower courts, including California courts, which restricted the nexus and proportionality tests to conditions imposed administratively. This exemption shielded legislative demands from the constitutional doctrine established by the aforementioned Supreme Court decisions. El Dorado County’s imposition of permit fees as part of a legislative process, not an administrative one, brings this legal loophole to the forefront.
The Sheetz v. El Dorado County case, initially filed and litigated by former Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) attorney Paul Beard II, marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing struggle to define the boundaries of permissible permit conditions. Paul Beard II, who successfully argued Koontz, will be representing Sheetz in front of the Supreme Court, with PLF attorneys serving as co-counsel.
This Supreme Court showdown has broader implications, touching the lives of every American aspiring to build a home, business, or project on their own land. As the legal saga unfolds, it stands as a testament to the enduring tension between property rights and regulatory authority, shaping the landscape for future land-use policies nationwide. Stay tuned for comprehensive coverage as the Supreme Court delves into this landmark case.
WHAT’S AT STAKE?
- The government can’t hold the right to use your property hostage in order to extract exorbitant fees. That’s akin to extortion.
- Permit fees must be proportional to the public costs imposed by new development. Otherwise, the government may leverage the permit process to take property it is not entitled to, skirting the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.
- Singling out some property owners to pay a disproportionate share of the cost of public amenities that are used by everyone is unfair, and the Supreme Court has repeatedly said it’s unconstitutional.
- California’s and some other courts have evaded Supreme Court precedent by allowing legislative bodies, like city councils, to charge excessive permit fees that would be plainly unconstitutional if charged by land use bureaucrats. We’re asking the Supreme Court to reaffirm that property rights don’t get less protection depending on which branch of government violates them.
Response: Ron Briggs
