After a fifty-year career in construction, George Sheetz wanted to retire near Lake Tahoe. He planned to build his retirement home on a lot he had bought. However, when Sheetz went to the county to obtain a building permit, he was told that he first had to pay a $23,000 “traffic impact mitigation” fee. When he complained, a county official said, “Well, you don’t have to build here. Go someplace else.” In other words, love it or leave it. Reluctantly, Sheetz paid the fee and then promptly sued El Dorado County. With the Pacific Legal Foundation (PLF) acting as co-counsel, Sheetz’s case reached the Supreme Court in early January.
Paul Beard, the lead attorney, previously worked for PLF. He noted,
The county’s fee was based not on any impacts caused by Mr. Sheetz. They just wanted him to contribute to prior road deficiencies related to the roads nearby the house.
In an email to supporters and donors, PLF President Steven D. Anderson reported that,
The County’s attorney conceded during the argument on the main question before the Court: whether permit conditions should be exempt from what’s called the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine” when they’re enacted legislatively.
This bodes well for both Sheetz and property rights. The Court is expected to issue its ruling by the end of June.
The love it or leave it attitude expressed by the county official is a common retort to a complaint about a land-use regulation. The property owner, the argument goes, knew the requirements and restrictions on a parcel of land when he bought it. He should not later complain. In other words, at the time of the purchase, the owner knew that his property rights were being violated and he should do nothing about it.
In truth, individuals have no obligation to passively accept violations of their right to property, no matter when those violations were established. The right to property means the freedom to produce, use, and trade material values. And that principle applies even if a violation occurred prior to ownership.