CA court shrugs off SCOTUS; Impact fees still constitutional

“…A California appeals court has reaffirmed its position that a $23,420 traffic impact fee applied to an 1,800-square-foot home does not run afoul of the Constitution’s Takings Clause, even though the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year tightened the rules on such fees…

…At issue is whether a legislative body, such as El Dorado County’s elected supervisors, were exempt from takings rules imposed by legal precedent. In its first ruling in the case, the appeals court concluded there was a legislative exemption, but in April the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously rejected that idea.

“… There is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators,” Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote for the court in April. “The Takings Clause applies equally to both – which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”

The high court vacated the first appeals court ruling and remanded it back to the court for further deliberations. But last month, the California court reaffirmed its first decision, finding that the traffic impact fees were constitutional despite the higher scrutiny advanced by the U.S. Supreme Court…”