How Might the Supreme Court "Takings" Ruling Affect Tacoma?

There has been a lot of attention to recent decisions from the Supreme Court. Next to historic decisions on gay marriage, affirmative action, and voting rights, Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District hasn’t gotten much attention. But it might be worth paying a little attention to.

Property owner Koontz wanted to build a development on a few acres of his property, which also happen to be wetlands. The Water Management District turned down his permit application when he refused to make certain concessions, including spending money to improve wetlands elsewhere in the area. The Supreme Court ruled that the imposition of the requirements, including fees, falls under the precedents governing “takings.” 

The SCOTUS blog explains the ruling on the case that pits property owner rights against land use regulations:

... when a government – any government – engages in land-use regulation, including by denying a permit or demanding payment as a condition for a permit, the government must show that there is a nexus and rough proportionality between its demand on the landowner and the effects of the proposed land use.

The merits of the Koontz case were sent back to the Florida courts, so we don’t know the ultimate outcome for that developer and his wetlands. We also don’t know the long-term effects of the Supreme Court decision, but questions are already being raised over implications for local government control over development. An opinion piece from The New York Times this weekend points out some potential concerns relating to sustainable development.

the ruling creates a perverse incentive for municipal governments to reject applications from developers rather than attempt to negotiate project designs that might advance both public and private goals — and it makes it hard for communities to get property owners to pay to mitigate any environmental damage they may cause.

Even a SCOTUS blog Opinion Recap on the case raises some potential negative implications of the decision. 

.. this is a holding with a potentially disturbing sweep, because almost every requirement that property owners pay over money (for example, property taxes or use fees), might now be subject to challenge ...

We’re not legal scholars, our emails and calls to a few people have gone unanswered, and ripple effects of the decision haven’t begun to really be felt yet, but it sounds like the decision has the potential to change the way we think about and plan for land use in Tacoma. Transfer of Development Rights? Conditional use permits? Others…?

How will this affect the development tools we use?