|
June 20, 2005 San Remo Supreme Court Decision a Win for Planners and Local Governments WASHINGTON, DC — The American Planning Association (APA) applauds the opinion issued today in the U.S. Supreme Court case, San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco, California (No. 04-340). The unanimous court agreed with the position advocated by APA and others that takings claims resolved by state courts should not be relitigated in federal court.
Under this decision, the courts cannot create an exception to the "full faith and credit" statute. Congress enacted the full faith and credit statute (28 U.S.C. § 1738) in order to give equal weight and recognition to opinions between different state and federal courts. If a state court issues an opinion in the case, then the federal courts must acknowledge and abide by the decision. Justice Stevens, author of the opinion wrote: "... we find petitioner's argument unpersuasive [in] that it assumes the courts may simply create exceptions to [the full faith and credit statute] wherever the courts deem appropriate ... we have held that Congress must 'clearly manifest' its intent to depart from [the full faith and credit statute]." He further stated in the opinion that "[p]etitioners did not have the right, however, to seek state review of the same substantive issues they sought to reserve. The purpose of the England reservation is not to grant plaintiffs a second bite at the apple in their forum of choice." "This decision supports the principle of basic fairness," said Paul Farmer, AICP, APA's Executive Director and CEO. "Takings claims, like all other legal disputes, deserve a day in court, but taxpayers deserve resolution once that claim is heard, not the prospect of endless litigation. This ruling protects local taxpayers from repeated lawsuits over development and planning decisions. "The justices realized that it simply isn't right to allow one side to keep playing until they win — or force communities to back down in the face of costly legal expenses." In this case, San Remo Hotel challenged San Francisco's ordinance requiring a "conversion fee" to change hotel rooms from the designation of resident use to tourist use. The California Supreme Court decided there was no takings based on both the California and U.S. Constitutions. The hotel then asked the federal court to consider the issue. The U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit, ruled that it could not because of the "full faith and credit" statute. However, the 2nd Circuit (in a different case with similar issues) ruled that the full faith and credit statute didn't apply. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case because of the confliciting opinions. APA filed an amicus brief in February 2005 urging the courts not to permit relitigation, given the concern that the claimant would be allowed a second suit in federal court that could further hinder local government's planning ability and give developers an unfair advantage in dealing with local officials. Timothy Dowling of Community Rights Counsel drafted APA's amicus brief to the court. In its amicus brief, APA argued that "landowners deserve a fair forum and a full hearing for their constitutional claims. San Remo received its fair hearing already. To grant San Remo's request in this case would unfairly put two hammers to the heads of local officials." Justice Stevens stated in the opinion that "state courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land-use decisions. Indeed, state courts undoubtedly have more experience than federal courts do in resolving complex factual, technical, and legal questions related to zoning and land-use regulations." APA joined other organizations in support of the City of San Francisco, including the California State Association of Counties and the League of California Cities. Contact
|
| |
Printer-Friendly Format
