Real Estate & Property Law

Petition for Rehearing in Pratt Construction v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n

By Robert Thomas

The property owner has filed a Petition for Rehearing asking the California Court of Appeal (2d District) to reconsider its decision in Charles A. Pratt Constr. Co., Inc. v. Cal. Coastal Comm'n, No. B190122 (May 8, 2008).  In that case, the court held the property owner's right to develop was not vested, and that a takings claim was not ripe since the owner could submit other plans for development.  The Land Use Law Blog details the case and provides commentary in "The Development Blues: Property Lies Undeveloped for 30 Years and Counting."

The opinion's opening paragraphs took a literary approach to the issue, citing "September Song," Einstein, and Heraclitus.  The Petition responds with flourishes of its own, quoting Stephen Hawking's "A Brief History of Time," and Jim Croce's "Time in a Bottle," arguing that the opinion overlooked or misstated the facts of the case, the controlling law, and reflects the court's failure to understand the coastal zone development process. 

It must be something about the law of vested rights that brings out the philosophical: in our article on Hawaii's vested rights law, Arrow of Time: Vested Rights, Zoning Estoppel, and Development Agreements in Hawaii, my co-authors and I drew upon time theory to explain how vested rights law attempts to wrest order from chaos. 

Read the Pratt Petition here.

Full post as published by inversecondemnation on May 27, 2008 (boomark / email).