The property rights battle is again under the spotlight in the United States with the Supreme Court ready to hear a new case concerning traffic impact mitigation fees. This latest dispute began in 2016 when George Sheetz, the owner of a property in California, applied to construct a single-family home. The local county demanded a traffic impact mitigation fee, totaling more than $23,000, before it would issue the permit. Mr. Sheetz agreed to pay the fee and was subsequently granted the permit, but he also lodged a court case to challenge the constitutionality of such a fee. This fee was issued to cover the community costs likely to result from the new construction. Despite two state courts affirmatively upholding the fee, it will now be contested in the Supreme Court.
This case comes in the backdrop of a longstanding tussle over property rights. Furthermore, interest groups are keenly observing the court’s decision as they believe it could potentially affect the availability of affordable housing across the states, particularly in California.
In the context of property laws, the Supreme Court has previously held in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard that if a government wants to require someone to give up property in exchange for a land-use permit, it must show that such a condition is closely related and roughly proportional to the effects of the proposed land use.
A variety of perspectives accompany this matter, with some arguing that the traffic impact mitigation fee places undue burdens on developers and property owners, essentially shifting public infrastructure costs on them. Counter arguments insist such fees aren’t a bypass around tax increases, they address burdens on infrastructure and aid in providing vital community services.
Voices supporting Sheetz, such as a building industry trade association and affordable housing groups, argue that fees of this nature significantly contribute to the high cost of housing in California indirectly amplifying the impact of systemic racism and pushing people to live further inland in areas more susceptible to wildfires. Conversely, groups representing local governments reiterate the significant contribution they make in providing infrastructure for projects and thus, charge these impact fees.
With potential ramifications beyond the case of George Sheetz, the Supreme Court’s verdict will be eagerly awaited not only in California but throughout the nation. The full article can be accessed here.