ROBERT BRIDGES, clinical professor of finance and business economics, USC’s Marshall School of Business
This op-ed originally appeared at Forbes on July 2.
Nearly unnoticed among the marquee decisions by this year’s Supreme Court session is Koontz v. St. John’s Water Management District. The decision granted the plaintiff the right to sue a governmental agency that required a payment – or ‘exaction’ – for public facilities miles away from his property as a contingency for approval of a building permit.
The headlines the morning after the decision heralded the ‘bolstering of property rights,’ but it’s doubly ironic that the integrity of rights in real property have been so badly eroded that it would take an act by the highest court of the land to simply grant the right of an individual to challenge a clearly confiscatory act, and that other forms of exactions – unforced, implied, or provided voluntarily – are an unfortunate but normal part of today’s real estate development process.