The Supreme Court is set to rule on a case involving a California construction worker who sued a county over a $23,000 building permit fee. George Sheetz, a construction veteran, purchased a vacant lot near Lake Tahoe with plans to build a retirement home. However, when he applied for a building permit, he was surprised to be hit with an unexpected “traffic impact mitigation” fee. Sheetz found the fee unreasonable and decided to take legal action against the county.
Sheetz’s attorney, Paul Beard, argued that the fee was unfair and disproportionate to the actual impact Sheetz’s project would have on the roads. The county asked Sheetz to pay for pre-existing deficiencies and traffic impacts caused by other developments, which Beard deemed unjust. After a seven-year legal battle, Sheetz’s case was brought before the Supreme Court earlier this month, with attorneys from the Pacific Legal Foundation serving as co-counsel.
El Dorado County, on the other hand, defended the fee as necessary for road maintenance and comparable to fees imposed by other local governments for public services. However, Beard contended that the county’s approach was illegal, as it did not consider the actual impacts caused by Sheetz’s project. He argued that the fee should either be shared by all taxpayers or accurately calculated based on Sheetz’s project.
The outcome of this case could have nationwide ramifications, as it raises questions about how local agencies fund public infrastructure. Under the Constitution’s Takings Clause, the government has the authority to seize property, including money, but certain conditions must be met. Beard argued that El Dorado County’s fee violated these conditions, as it only burdened new development applicants instead of all taxpayers.
If the Supreme Court rules in favor of El Dorado County, it could set a precedent allowing governments to impose fees for land use without oversight from the courts. This would disproportionately affect new development and project applicants, shifting the burden of public infrastructure costs onto them. On the other hand, a win for Sheetz would require governments to demonstrate that the fees they charge for land use permits are connected and proportionate to the project’s impacts.
Sheetz, who has spent 50 years in construction, emphasized the importance of protecting the rights of everyday working people against government violations. He expressed concern about the financial strain imposed on the working class and called for a stand against such unfair practices.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling on this case by June 30. The decision will have significant implications for the relationship between governments and land use permit applicants across the country.
[
