COM 0200.040 2006-2008 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

government to prove such proportionality.34 Although the two appellate courts which have considered this issue in the context of linkage fees both concluded that heightened scrutiny is inappropriate,35 the rationale in those decisions is not limited to the context of linkage fees. The issue extends to all legislatively imposed, non-discretionary (or ministerial) fees. There are essentially two major approaches to the question of legislatively imposed fees. On one hand, some jurisdictions hold Dolan's heightened scrutiny inapplicable to legislative fees by virtue of the Court's rationale in Nollan. First, such jurisdictions observe that in Dolan, the Court distinguished "generally applicable legislative zoning regulations" from an "adjudicative decision." 36 Next, they note the Court's concern in Nollan that "unless the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but an out-and-out plan of extortion."37 Bridging the logical gap, these courts argue that such regulatory leveraging (i.e., extortion) poses much less of a threat at the legislative level than at the administrative level.38 These courts thus conclude that Dolan's procedural safeguards are unnecessary beyond the administrative decisionmaking context. The Ninth Circuit, Arizona, California, Colorado, New Jersey, and Oregon adhere to this approach.39 34 Id. at 391 n.8. 35 See San Remo, 41 P.3d at 102-03; Holmdel, 583 A.2d at 288. 3B Dolan, 512 U.S. at 39] n.8. Noldan, 483 U.S. at 837 (citation and quotation marks omitted). See, e.g., Ehrlich v. City gfCulver City, 911 P.2d 429, 444 (Cal. 1996). 3v See Carneau v. City of Seattle, 147 F.3d 802, 815-16 (9th Cir. 1998); Home Builders Assn of Central Ariz. v. City ofScottsdole, 930 P.2d 993, 1000 (Ariz. 1997); San Remo, 41 P.3d at 102-04; Krupp v. Breckenridge Sanitation District, 19 P.3d 687, 696 (Colo. 2001) (en banc); Holmde! Builders Assn, 583 A.2d at 288; Home Builders Assn v. Tualatin Hills Park & Recreadion Dist., 62 P.3d 404, 406 (Or. Ct. App. 2003). 10