In a landmark victory, George Sheetz of Northern California has won his case against El Dorado County's development impact fees at the U.S. Supreme Court. CBS News reported that After a seven-year legal struggle, Sheetz's challenge to the county's traffic impact fee, deemed excessively high, was unanimously upheld by the Supreme Court.
In 2016, Sheetz, planning to retire, decided to build a modest 1,800-square-foot manufactured home on his property in a rural area of El Dorado County. His vision faced a significant hurdle when he was informed of a traffic impact fee amounting to $23,420, in addition to other permitting fees which together surpassed $28,000.
Sheetz decided to go to war with the county's draconian leadership and now the Supreme Court has sided with him and sent a message to county governments that excessive fees will not be permissible.
"What they're saying is me putting this house here is impacting the roads and therefore, they need to charge this money," Sheetz explained. He contested the rationale behind the fee, noting the limited impact his home would have on the broader community due to its rural location.
Sheetz decided to challenge the fee, asserting it was unconstitutional and disproportionate to his project's cost. His legal journey was arduous, facing setbacks at the Trial Court and the California Court of Appeal, and even being denied by the California Supreme Court.
Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court took up the case. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, delivering the court's opinion, highlighted the essentiality of compensating private property owners fairly when their property is utilized for public use.
"I'm the little guy, and to get that far is amazing and it shows you that every once in a while, the small guy can win one," Sheetz said, reflecting on his lengthy battle that culminated in a surprising 9-0 decision from the Supreme Court. "It was a bit of a shock for me to go back there and be in front of the 9 justices, and I was amazed this morning when I heard it was 9-0," he added.
Despite the victory, Sheetz noted, "This is not the end of the fight. It's going to get back into the lower courts unless the county decides to settle." El Dorado County responded to the decision with a statement emphasizing the narrow scope of the Supreme Court's ruling. They maintained that it did not impede their ability to impose reasonable permitting conditions, including impact fees.
"The County is pleased with the Supreme Court's decision, which answers only a narrow question on which the parties already agreed. It explicitly leaves open the County's other strong defenses and casts no doubt on whether local governments can continue to impose reasonable permitting conditions (including impact fees) on new development under their traditional land-use authority, as the County has done here," read the statement from El Dorado County.
As the case potentially moves back to the lower courts, the implications of this ruling may influence future development projects and the application of impact fees across the country. Sheetz's case highlights the significant challenges and potential triumphs individuals may face when contesting regulatory fees that they believe are unjustified.
The final determination of Sheetz's challenge will likely hinge on further legal interpretations and possibly on negotiations between him and El Dorado County. Regardless of the outcome, this case has set a significant precedent regarding the assessment and justification of development fees in rural settings.
In conclusion, George Sheetz's unexpected journey through the U.S. legal system has not only highlighted the challenges of individual property owners against imposing development fees but also underscored the necessity for clear, fair practices in local government's imposition of such charges.
