Fideicomiso de la Tierra del v. Fortuno, et al

Filing 920100428

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = '                   There was an exception for a maritime terrestrial zone,\
id. § 5045. Further, the Department of Housing was directed to do\
title searches and, where appropriate, to provide registration of\
ownership rights to residents of the area within one year. Id.\
§ 5047.\
'

var WPFootnote2 = '                   The Fideicomiso also challenges Law 32 under the parallel\
due process and takings clauses of the Puerto Rican constitution. \
'

var WPFootnote3 = '                   The district court did not reach the merits of this claim\
because it declined to exercise jurisdiction over the Fideicomiso\'s\
claims under the abstention doctrine of R.R. Comm\'n of Tex. v.\
Pullman, 312 U.S. 496 (1941). See Fideicomiso de la Tierra del\
Caño Martin Peña v. Fortuño, 670 F. Supp. 2d 132, 140-42 (D.P.R.\
2009). It reasoned that whether the Fideicomiso owned "private\
property" subject to the Takings Clause turned on difficult and\
unsettled questions of Puerto Rican law best left to the Puerto\
Rican courts. Id. at 137-40. Our approach is to ask questions\
preceding the ones on which that court focused.\
'

var WPFootnote4 = '                   Community land trusts (CLTs) have long been championed as\
a solution to the problem of affordable housing in urban\
communities. See J.J. Kelly Jr., Land Trusts that Conserve\
Communities, 59 DePaul L. Rev. 69, 70-71 (2009). CLTs are usually\
nonprofit, democratically run organizations of community members\
that own land in the area and hold it in trust for the community\'s\
benefit, while selling or leasing the homes built upon the land at\
low cost. Id. Because the trust cannot generally sell the\
underlying land and can usually place conditions on the sale of\
homes on the land, both of which are true here, the CLT model aims\
to rehabilitate urban communities while deterring land speculation\
and gentrification by private developers. Id. at 79-84.\
'

var WPFootnote5 = '                   Under Pullman abstention, federal courts ordinarily stay\
the federal action instead of dismissing it. Mangual v. Rotger-Sabat, 317 F.3d 45, 63 (1st Cir. 2003). We do not need to reach\
the issue of whether the failure to stay was error.\
'

var WPFootnote6 = '                   On appeal, the parties focus on this issue as central to\
whether the Fideicomiso could state a claim under the Takings\
Clause, on the theory that there can be no taking if the\
Fideicomiso had no cognizable property rights. The Fourth Circuit\
has instead characterized whether a plaintiff is a public entity\
capable of suing the state for an alleged constitutional violation\
as an Eleventh Amendment issue because of the stakes for the\
state\'s sovereign dignitary interests. See Virginia v. Reinhard,\
568 F.3d 110, 122-23 (4th Cir. 2009). We need not engage in an\
Eleventh Amendment analysis. Other circuits have classified this\
question yet differently under the rubric of standing, see, e.g.,\
id. at 123 n.3 (collecting cases), though the reasoning in some\
cases has not invoked Article III considerations. Id. \
              Whatever the formal label, this is not the kind of\
jurisdictional issue we must address first under Steel Company v.\
Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998). See\
Davignon v. Clemmey, 322 F.3d 1, 11 (1st Cir. 2003) (interpreting\
Steel Company as holding that difficult jurisdictional questions\
need only be addressed before the merits if they implicate Article\
III\'s "case or controversy" requirement). Instead, this is the\
kind of thorny question we have avoided when, as here, another\
issue is dispositive. See Parella v. Ret. Bd. of the R.I.\
Employees\' Ret. Sys., 173 F.3d 46, 56 n.6, 58-62 (1st Cir. 1999)\
(avoiding deciding whether the defendant was an "arm of the state"\
for Eleventh Amendment purposes because plaintiffs\' Takings and\
other constitutional claims failed on the merits). \
              We do not reach this issue, and for this reason, we also do\
not address the Seventh Circuit\'s opinion in Illinois Clean Energy\
Community Foundation v. Filan, 392 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2004), which\
held that a foundation created by statute was not a state agency\
and could bring a Takings Clause claim against the state. Id. at\
936-37.\
'

var WPFootnote7 = '                   The fact that under Law 489 the land may, after\
improvements, be leased to private parties does not mean that Law\
489 lacks a public purpose, see Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26, 33-36 (1954), nor does the Fideicomiso so argue.\
'

var WPFootnote8 = '                   Thus the category of cases in which the property is\
transferred to another private party, see, e.g., Kelo, 545 U.S. at\
478-83; Midkiff, 467 U.S. at 241-42; Berman, 348 U.S. at 33-36, is\
not involved here. \
'

var WPFootnote9 = '                   At oral argument, the government represented that those\
public agencies must, under Law 32, continue to administer the\
lands for the benefit of canal residents and for all the other\
stated public purposes originally articulated in Law 489. \
'

var WPFootnote10 = '                   Though the Supreme Court has granted declaratory and\
injunctive relief for a limited number of Takings Clause claims\
beyond "public use" challenges, it has also made clear that these\
cases are exceptional and limited to their facts. Those cases,\
moreover, involved regulatory takings, not physical takings. See\
E. Enterprises v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498, 521-22, 528-537 (1998)\
(plurality opinion) (granting declaratory and injunctive relief for\
a regulatory takings claim on the facts of a Tucker Act case where\
the alleged taking resulted in severe, retroactive, and\
unforeseeable liability for a small number of parties and the\
Claims Court process would not provide a sufficient remedy);\
Babbitt v. Youpee, 519 U.S. 234, 237, 243-45 (1997) (invalidating\
and enjoining further enforcement of a federal statutory provision\
that effectively eliminated certain Native American landowners\'\
ability to leave fractional interests in property to their\
successors); Irving v. Hodel, 481 U.S. 704, 716-18 (1987)\
(invalidating and enjoining an earlier version of this provision). \
'

var WPFootnote11 = 'The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to the\
states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.\
Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 536 (2005). Though the Supreme Court has not\
held that the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment is applicable\
to the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, we have dispelled any "doubts"\
regarding the application of the clause to the Commonwealth of\
Puerto Rico. Tenoco Oil Co., Inc. v. Dep\'t of Consumer Affairs,\
876 F.2d 1013, 1017 n.9 (1st Cir. 1989); see also Culebras Enter.\
Corp. v. Rivera Ríos, 813 F.2d 506 (1st Cir. 1987) (assuming, in\
the context of an inverse condemnation action under Puerto Rico\
law, that the Takings Clause applies to the Commonwealth of Puerto\
Rico).\
'

var WPFootnote12 = 'As previously mentioned, Article 16 of Law 489 provided for\
the transfer of lands in the Martín Peña Canal District to the\
ENLACE Corporation.\
'

var WPFootnote13 = 'The determination that the Fideicomiso cannot succeed in its\
claim that Law 32 is facially unconstitutional should not be\
interpreted as barring future as-applied takings challenges if it\
is shown that lands in the Martín Peña Canal District are taken for\
purely private purposes, Midkiff, 467 U.S. at 245, or "under the\
mere pretext of a public purpose," Kelo, 545 U.S. at 478.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "