Koontz and Other Hot Planning Topics from the 2014 RMLUI Conference

APA Arizona, Southern Section


Wednesday, March 19, 2014
11:30 a.m. - 1 p.m. MST

Tucson, AZ, United States

CM | 1.50
L | 1.50

Add to My Log


In June 2013, the United States Supreme Court decided Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt Dist., --U.S.--, 133 S.Ct. 2586 (2013), a seminal “unconstitutional conditions doctrine case.” Koontz applies the “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” exactions rules established in Nollan and Dolan to purely financial exactions and to preliminary negotiations between a property owner and the government. Ten months after Koontz was decided, attorneys and planners continue to debate whether it has any substantial effects on exactions and impact fees and on government-developer negotiations. Some argue that Koontz will lead to surreptitious recordings of private developer-government representative negotiations. Others contend that Koontz signals the beginning of the end of negotiated development deals. A third view is that Koontz really hasn’t changed anything.