| Court: | CA Supreme Court |
| Facts: | Plaintiff used to operate a private health club. It was doing badly, so he wanted to make an office building. The city said no, but after losing more money he asked again. The city thought about buying the property, but then decided not to. Instead, they said he could only get his project approved if he agreed to build new recreational facilities or paid $280K in lieu thereof. Also, he had to pay fees for artwork and parkland. |
| Posture: | Appeals while Dolan was handed down. |
| Issue: | Does the doctrine about compensable regulatory takings apply to monetary takings as well as real property? |
| Holding: | Yes. |
| Rule: | The standard from Nollan and Dolan applies: essential nexus and rough proportionality. |
| Reasoning: | There's nexus here, but no proportionality. Maybe some amount is justified, but there's no telling what from the record. Certainly the value of facilities it couldn't appropriate without payment isn't a good yardstick. The art stuff is different, though, and it's OK. |
| Dicta: | |