Politics
Builders may fight 'impact fees' that fund municipal projects in California, Supreme Court rules
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that developers and home builders in California may challenge the fees commonly imposed by cities and counties to pay for new roads, schools, sewers and other public improvements.
The justices said these “impact fees” may be unconstitutional if builders and developers are forced to pay an unfair share of the cost of public projects.
Developers have contended that limiting California’s high fees would lead to the construction of more affordable new housing.
California state courts had blocked claims arising from “a development impact fee imposed pursuant to a legislatively authorized fee program” for new development in a city or county.
But the 9-0 Supreme Court decision opened the door for such challenges. The justices revived a constitutional claim brought by an El Dorado County man who put a manufactured home on a small lot and was told he would have to pay a “traffic mitigation fee” of $23,420.
The decision could have wide impact in California, since local governments have increasingly relied on impact fees rather than property taxes to pay for new projects.
But the justices did not spell out when such fees become unfair and unconstitutional.
Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson said they joined the majority opinion in Sheetz vs. El Dorado County because it merely allows such challenges.
In a separate opinion, conservative Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh said he saw merit to the “common government practice of imposing permit conditions, such as impact fees, on new development through reasonable formulas or schedules that assess the impact of classes of development rather than the impact of specific parcels of property.”
State and county attorneys had made just that argument. They said it was fairer to impose a development fee on all the lots in an area.
But the justices nonetheless ruled that homeowners and developers may sue to challenge these fees as an unconstitutional taking of their private property. The case will now go back to the California courts.
The Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento hailed the ruling as a significant victory for property rights.
“Holding building permits hostage in exchange for excessive development fees is obviously extortion,” said attorney Paul Beard, who represented the El Dorado County homeowner. “We are thrilled that the court agreed and put a stop to a blatant attempt to skirt the 5th Amendment’s prohibition against taking private property without just compensation.”
Beard said El Dorado County “failed to show — and cannot show — that the fee is sufficiently related and proportionate to the traffic impacts” of his client’s “modest home.”
The debate over development fees is especially relevant in California, where local governments have increasingly relied on the charges to finance parks, streets, schools and other infrastructure and services since the 1978 passage of Proposition 13 limited property tax revenues.
The fees have come under scrutiny in other cases as developers and others have blamed them for driving up the cost of housing and for a wide disparity in cities’ fees.
A 2018 study by UC Berkeley’s Terner Center for Housing Innovation found that, depending on the city, fees for new single-family homes could range from $21,000 to $157,000, and could account for 6% to 18% of the median home price.
For decades, the Supreme Court has cast a skeptical eye at California’s regulation of private property. In a pair of decisions, it limited the power of government officials to demand concessions from a property owner in exchange for a building permit.
In 1987, justices ruled for the owner of a beach bungalow in Ventura who was told he could not obtain a permit to expand his home unless he agreed to allow the public access to the beachfront. The conservative majority at the time described this demand as akin to “extortion” and said it violated the 5th Amendment’s clause that forbids the taking of “private property … for public use without just compensation.”
In a follow-up decision involving a store owner who was forced to allow a bike path on her property, the court said the government may not impose such special conditions on property owners unless it can show an owner’s new development would cause direct harm to the community.
But since then, it has been unclear whether this property right applies to development fees or in situations where fees are set by legislation rather than imposed on a single owner seeking a permit.
Writing for the court in Friday’s ruling, conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that “there is no basis for affording property rights less protection in the hands of legislators than administrators. The Takings Clause applies equally to both — which means that it prohibits legislatures and agencies alike from imposing unconstitutional conditions on land-use permits.”
The case arose when property owner George Sheetz sought a permit to put a manufactured home on a lot he owned in Placerville, outside Sacramento. El Dorado County required him to pay a “traffic impact mitigation” fee to obtain the permit. Some of the money was to go toward upgrades to Highway 50, which runs through the area, but most was to go toward new or expanded roads in the county.
Sheetz paid the fee and obtained his permit, then sued to challenge the fee as unconstitutional. He argued that the taxpayers of the county, not the new owner of a small home, should be required to pay for road building.
The justices agreed to hear his appeal after he lost in the California courts.
State Sen. Scott Wiener (D-San Francisco), who has supported legislation to rein in developer fees, said he didn’t expect Friday’s decision by itself to have a significant effect on the debate in Sacramento because it only called out one extreme situation.
“Ultimately, the solution is the same today as it was yesterday,” Wiener said. “The California Legislature needs to put in place an actual structure for impact fees. Right now, it’s all over the map.”
Wiener said he sympathizes with local governments that turn to the fees because it’s easier than raising revenue through broad-based taxes — but he said some cities use sky-high fees to block housing development.
“There is something a little odd about effectively taxing new housing to pay for societal needs that should be paid generally by taxpayers — by the entire community,” he said.
Graham Knaus, executive director of the California State Assn. of Counties, said in a statement Friday that the organization was still reviewing the ruling to understand its implications.
But he said that “limiting the ability to legislatively enact fees will negatively impact the ability of our 58 counties to protect the health and welfare of their communities and drastically limit the building of vital local infrastructure.”
“In many cases,” Knaus said, “these fees are the only tool available to pay for new infrastructure around certain development projects.”
Times staff writer Liam Dillon in Los Angeles contributed to this report.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The U.S. military announced another deadly strike against a vessel that it alleges was involved in “narco-trafficking” efforts.
“On April 19, at the direction of #SOUTHCOM commander Gen. Francis L. Donovan, Joint Task Force Southern Spear conducted a lethal kinetic strike on a vessel operated by Designated Terrorist Organizations,” U.S. Southern Command indicated in a post on X.
“Intelligence confirmed the vessel was transiting along known narco-trafficking routes in the Caribbean and was engaged in narco-trafficking operations,” the post continued.
US MILITARY KILLS 2 SUSPECTED CARTEL OPERATIVES IN LATEST EASTERN PACIFIC LETHAL STRIKE, SOUTHCOM SAYS
The U.S. military announced that it killed three “narco-terrorists” in a strike in the Caribbean on Sunday, April 19, 2026. (@Soutcom via X)
SOUTHCOM indicated that the attack killed three men.
“Three male narco-terrorists were killed during this action. No U.S. military forces were harmed,” the post noted.
President Donald Trump’s administration has carried out dozens of deadly strikes against vessels of alleged “narco-terrorists.”
US MILITARY CONDUCTS MORE DEADLY STRIKES AGAINST VESSELS OF ALLEGED ‘NARCO-TERRORISTS’
Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Francis L. Donovan, nominee for commander of U.S. Southern Command, testifies during his Senate confirmatino hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 15, 2026. (Brendan Smialowski/AFP via Getty Images)
In a completely different part of the world, amid ongoing tensions between America and Iran, the U.S. attacked an Iranian-flagged cargo ship on April 19.
“Guided-missile destroyer USS Spruance (DDG 111) intercepted M/V Touska as it transited the north Arabian Sea at 17 knots enroute to Bandar Abbas, Iran. American forces issued multiple warnings and informed the Iranian-flagged vessel it was in violation of the U.S. blockade,” U.S. Central Command noted.
US SEIZES IRANIAN SHIP AFTER OPENING FIRE; PAKISTAN TALKS IN DOUBT
President Donald Trump on the South Lawn of the White House before boarding Marine One in Washington, D.C., on Thursday, April 16, 2026. (Graeme Sloan/Sipa/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
“After Touska’s crew failed to comply with repeated warnings over a six-hour period, Spruance directed the vessel to evacuate its engine room. Spruance disabled Touska’s propulsion by firing several rounds from the destroyer’s 5-inch MK 45 Gun into Touska’s engine room. U.S. Marines from the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit later boarded the non-compliant vessel, which remains in U.S. custody,” CENTCOM noted.
SACRAMENTO — A month after a public uproar over a mama bear being euthanized after swiping at a resident in Monrovia, state lawmakers are considering mandating the use of nonlethal ways to help allow wildlife and humans to coexist.
Sen. Catherine Blakespear (D-Encinitas) said she believes the bear’s death, and the state’s decision to kill four wolves last year that were preying on cattle, raised public concern.
“That made everybody realize we have to do better here,” she told The Times on Thursday. “We need to recognize the importance of seeing ourselves, humans, as part of a larger ecosystem that includes animals and plants and our world and trying to protect it.”
Senate Bill 1135, introduced by Blakespear, would direct the California Department of Fish and Wildlife to create the Wildlife Coexistence Program, which would provide public education, offer technical assistance and maintain a statewide incident reporting system. It would help communities deploy nonlethal devices to deter predators, like barriers or noise and light machines.
At a legislative hearing on Tuesday, Blakespear told the Senate Committee on Natural Resources and Water that a three-year state initiative offering similar services was seeing positive results — until it was discontinued two years ago after funding ran dry. She said it was time to implement a permanent program.
“Human population growth, habitat loss and the growth of industry across California inevitably leads to interaction between humans and wildlife,” Blakespear told legislators. “No two animal species are the same and each has unique behavior patterns and territories. SB 1135 recognizes these differences and gives communities the tools to prevent conflict and respond when it occurs.”
The bill would also rename a state program that reimburses ranchers who lose livestock to wolves, calling it the Wolf-Livestock Coexistence and Compensation Program. It would require ranchers seeking compensation to show they were using nonlethal deterrents approved by the department.
Sen. Shannon Grove (R-Bakersfield) stressed that life in rural areas is different than living in a city. She said some families and cattle ranchers have a genuine fear of predators.
“When these baby calves drop on the ground and then two wolves start ripping them apart, it’s not the prettiest thing you’ve ever witnessed,” said Grove, who abstained from voting on the measure. “These wolves are not puppies.”
More than 30 organizations are supporting the legislation, including the National Wildlife Federation, Defenders of Wildlife, California State Assn. of Counties, Animal Legal Defense Fund and Citizens for Los Angeles Wildlife.
The California Farm Bureau and the California Cattlemen’s Assn. are in opposition due to concerns over funding.
Last month, Blakespear sent a letter to the chair of the Senate Committee on Budget and Fiscal Review requesting $48.8 million to implement the legislation, with $25 million earmarked for addressing wolf encounters. Half of the money for wolf conflicts would go toward deterrents; the remainder would compensate ranchers for their losses.
Kirk Wilbur, vice president of government affairs cattlemen’s association, said the organization is concerned about that division of funding — especially if funding is reduced.
Wilbur told legislators Tuesday that the organization supports some aspects of the bill and was having productive conversations with Blakespear to address their concerns.
The bill ultimately passed the committee with a 5-to-1 vote and now heads to the Senate Committee on Appropriations.
Human wildlife conflicts have made headlines in California recently, with a bear refusing to leave a basement for weeks in Altadena and a mama bear dubbed Blondie crossing paths last month with a woman walking her dog in Monrovia.
Blondie swiped the woman’s leg, and was subsequently euthanized by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Her two cubs were sent to the San Diego Humane Society’s Ramona Wildlife Center. The bear’s death upset many in the community, as thousands had signed a petition calling for other solutions, like relocation.
Deadly wildlife attacks on humans, however, are rare in California.
There have been six reported human fatalities from mountain lions since 1890, according to the state Fish and Wildlife Department. The agency recorded one human fatality from a coyote in 1981 and another fatality from a black bear in 2023. The department has no recorded human fatalities from gray wolves.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The Justice Department is turning to former Trump attorney Joeseph diGenova to spearhead a probe into ex-CIA Director John Brennan and others over the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation, as the department reshuffles leadership of the sprawling inquiry.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has tapped diGenova to serve as counsel overseeing the matter, according to a New York Times report, putting a former Trump attorney in a key role in the high-profile probe. A federal grand jury seated in Miami has been impaneled since late last year.
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s request for comment.
DOJ ACTIVELY PREPARING TO ISSUE GRAND JURY SUBPOENAS RELATING TO JOHN BRENNAN INVESTIGATION: SOURCES
Joseph diGenova represented President Donald Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
DiGenova, a former U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., who represented Trump during special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, has repeatedly accused Brennan of misconduct tied to the origins of the Russia probe—allegations that have not resulted in criminal charges.
He also said in a 2018 appearance on Fox News that Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump.
The origins of the Russia investigation have been the subject of ongoing scrutiny by Trump allies, who have argued that intelligence and law enforcement officials improperly launched the probe.
BRENNAN INDICTMENT COULD COME WITHIN ‘WEEKS’ AS PROSECUTORS REQUEST OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPTS
Joseph diGenova has previously said that ex-CIA chief John Brennan colluded with the FBI and DOJ to frame Trump. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)
DiGenova’s appointment follows the ouster of Maria Medetis Long, a national security prosecutor in the South Florida U.S. attorney’s office. She had been overseeing the inquiry, including a false statements probe related to Brennan and broader conspiracy-related investigations.
As the investigation continues, federal investigators have issued subpoenas seeking information related to intelligence assessments of Russian interference in the 2016 election.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
John Brennan has denied any wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation. (William B. Plowman/NBC/NBC NewsWire via Getty Images; Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Brennan has previously denied wrongdoing related to the Russia investigation and has defended the intelligence community’s assessment that Moscow interfered in the 2016 election.
-
Cleveland, OH4 minutes agoRabbi Leibel Alevsky, 86, AH | Anash.org
-
Austin, TX10 minutes agoAthena the owl: 2nd owlet discovered to be alive
-
Alabama16 minutes agoAlabama juvenile is charged with murder of missing 10-year-old girl found dead at a home
-
Alaska22 minutes agoU.S. Coast Guard announces homeporting of the first two Arctic Security Cutters in Alaska
-
Arizona28 minutes agoDust returns to Phoenix area after hazy weekend – KTAR.com
-
Arkansas34 minutes agoArkansas Storm Team Blog: 7th driest year on record to date
-
California40 minutes ago480 ducks find homes after an emergency rescue operation in Riverside County
-
Colorado46 minutes agoIs Elitch Gardens open? Your guide to Colorado amusement parks