SCOTUS Considers Case of Man Charged $23,000 Fee To Build Home

SCOTUS Considers Case of Man Charged $23,000 Fee To Build Home

( – George Sheetz, a veteran of the construction industry with five decades of experience, faced an unexpected hurdle when he decided to build a retirement home near Lake Tahoe. Fox News recently reported that after purchasing a vacant lot, Sheetz’s plans hit a snag upon learning of a hefty “traffic impact mitigation” fee imposed by the county, amounting to over $23,000. This fee, introduced by the county legislature to fund road improvements, caught Sheetz off guard, leading to his frustration and eventual legal challenge. The matter is currently being considered by the Supreme Court.

Despite his extensive background in building homes and familiarity with standard procedures, Sheetz found the fee unreasonable and disproportionate to the impact his modest 1,800-square-foot manufactured home would have on local traffic. His attorney, Paul Beard of the Pacific Legal Foundation, echoed these sentiments, criticizing the county for unfairly burdening Sheetz with costs associated with broader infrastructure issues unrelated to his project.

Sheetz paid the fee in 2016 and proceeded to sue the county. The legal battle, stretching over seven years and including two unfavorable rulings, eventually reached the Supreme Court. Beard, representing Sheetz, argued that the fee was not only excessive but also unconstitutional, as it failed to reflect the actual impact of Sheetz’s project and unfairly targeted new development applicants instead of distributing the cost across all taxpayers.

El Dorado County defended its fee, asserting it was necessary for maintaining essential public infrastructure and likening it to other fees used to fund public services. The county’s stance was that determining costs on a case-by-case basis would be excessively burdensome for local governments. The lower courts previously sided with the county, noting that the fee was imposed by the legislative body, not an executive entity.

Beard, however, contended that the nature of the body imposing the fee was irrelevant, emphasizing that any such imposition must be justified and proportional under the Constitution’s Takings Clause. He warned that a ruling in favor of El Dorado County could set a precedent allowing governments to levy land use fees without judicial scrutiny, disproportionately affecting new project applicants.

Sheetz’s case, as argued by Beard, centers on the principle that public infrastructure costs should be borne by the public at large through taxes, rather than unfairly targeting a select few. This fight for fairness in land use fees not only challenges El Dorado County’s approach, but also has broader implications for how local governments nationwide might fund public infrastructure projects.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by June 30, will determine whether governments must prove that land use fees are directly connected and proportionate to the impacts of specific projects.

Copyright 2024,