Pace Environmental Law Review Volume 34 Issue 2 Spring 2017 Article 1 April 2017 Let’s Be Reasonable: Why Neither Nollan/Dolan nor Penn Central Should Govern Generally-Applied Legislative Exactions After Koontz Glen Hansen Abbott & Kindermann, Inc. Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Land Use Law Commons, and the Legislation Commons Recommended Citation Glen Hansen, Let’s Be Reasonable: Why Neither Nollan/Dolan nor Penn Central Should Govern Generally-Applied Legislative Exactions After Koontz, 34 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 237 (2017) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/pelr/vol34/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Environmental Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact
[email protected]. ARTICLE Let’s Be Reasonable: Why Neither Nollan/Dolan nor Penn Central Should Govern Generally-Applied Legislative Exactions After Koontz GLEN HANSEN* TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................................................... 239 II. Koontz Extended the Heightened Scrutiny of Nollan/Dolan to Ad Hoc, Adjudicative Monetary Exactions, but Did Not Address Whether Nollan/Dolan Also Applies to Legislative Exactions ............................... 243 A. The Heightened Scrutiny in Nollan/Dolan Is Designed to Protect Land-Use Applicants from a Specific Type of Regulatory Taking ............................ 243 B. The Majority in Koontz Applied Nollan/Dolan to Ad Hoc, Adjudicative Monetary Exactions ...................... 245 * Mr. Hansen is a Senior Counsel at the law firm of Abbott & Kindermann, Inc., in Sacramento, California.