| The projected impact of the subdivision project did not warrant the degree of improvements mandated by the town, and in a friend-of-the-court brief NAHB argued that the road improvements exacted from the developer, Stafford Estates Limited Partnership, amounted to an unconstitutional infringement upon its constitutional rights. The court agreed. Stafford cited a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1987 Nollan case requiring localities to demonstrate a “nexus” between a legitimate government interest and the exaction it demands from the developer, such as a road improvement, and a 1994 Dolan case ruling that exactions must be proportionate to the impact of the development. Flower Mound argued that those cases did not apply to its exaction because its permit approval was conditioned on a monetary expenditure and not forfeiting actual property. But the Texas court ruled otherwise, finding that the standards established in the Nollan and Dolan cases are essential to prevent government from “unfairly leveraging its police power over land-use regulation to extract from landowners concessions and benefits to which it is not entitled.” In cases such as this, the government has the burden of justifying the condition or exaction demanded of the developer. Flower Mound failed to show that the required improvements were roughly proportional to the impact of the subdivision on the road or the town’s roadway system, and the court found that this was simply a way for the town to “extract from Stafford a benefit to which the Town was not entitled.” “This decision is a win for the Texas building industry and for builders across the country,” Rayburn said. “To the extent that it leads local governments to be more prudent in seeking development exactions, it will help lower the cost of new homes.” To read the court’s decision in the case of Town of Flower Mound v. Stafford Estates Limited Partnership, No 02-0369, click here. For further informatiion, e-mail Jon Luther or call him at 800-368-5242 x8329. | 
