The Greater Boston Real Estate Board (GBREB)joined other industry stakeholders in an amicus brief requesting Supreme Court review in Walls v. Prince George’s County and Tedford's Tenancy, LLC v. City of New York. These cases address ripeness of property owners’ regulatory takings claims involving permitting and rent control, respectively. Both cases center on the legal doctrine of ripeness and when property owners may bring constitutional takings claims before a court.
Ripeness is a legal doctrine determining whether a dispute is ready for judicial review. Most courts require property owners to obtain a final decision from the government before pursuing a takings claim. These cases ask whether property owners who have already suffered a concrete injury must continue pursuing other administrative remedies or procedures before they can access the courts.
In Walls, a Maryland property owner seeking to build housing invested nearly $40,000 obtaining county permits and approvals, but Prince George’s County denied permission to install a well and septic system necessary to make the property buildable. Although county officials had already indicated they would deny such requests, the courts dismissed his takings claim as unripe, concluding he first had to pursue additional procedures, including seeking a state legislative amendment to the county's water and sewer plan—a process that could take years and still provide no guarantee of relief.
In Tedford's Tenancy, a New York City apartment building owner subject to the city’s rent control regime alleges loss of the property’s economically viable use, leaving the building operating at a loss and facing substantial repair costs. Rather than addressing the merits of the claim, the courts held that the owners must first pursue additional administrative remedies, despite arguments that those procedures could not meaningfully address the financial harm already suffered.
The brief argues that property owners should not be required to navigate endless and potentially futile rounds of permitting, appeals, or other government procedures before gaining access to the courts. The brief also emphasizes the broader consequences of permitting delays and rent control regimes, noting that prolonged approval processes increase development costs, discourage new housing construction, and further constrain housing supply.
GBREB continues to support efforts advancing housing supply and defeating harmful property regulations. We welcome the opportunity to lend our voice in these important cases.