1X
This July 1994 episode examined the legal limits on government "exactions" — conditions imposed on development permits requiring developers to fund infrastructure such as roads, parks, and affordable housing. David Callies, a professor of law at the University of Hawaii and a recognized authority on land-use regulation, explained that a recent United States Supreme Court ruling had established a rough-proportionality test: government may exact only what bears a rational nexus to the specific impact a development causes. He argued that the City and County of Honolulu's practice of conditioning zoning approvals on affordable-housing contributions lacked any such nexus and would likely fail a legal challenge. Don Clegg, the city's director of land utilization, acknowledged that many exactions were legally dubious under the new standard but said the city would continue the practice until the courts ordered otherwise, given public demand and the absence of alternative funding. Both guests agreed the permitting process took far too long and that an excessive accumulation of laws was a significant cause. The episode also raised the question of whether bilateral development agreements would be more legally defensible than the city's current unilateral-agreement system, which both guests said they had long advocated for.
Transcript
Read or download the full transcript (.txt). Speaker labels were assigned automatically and may contain errors.