State & Local News Vol. 21, No. 4, Summer 1998 Recent Developments Peter A. Buchsbaum practices law with Greenbaum, Rowe, Smith, Ravin, Davis & Himmel in Woodbridge, New Jersey. By Peter A. Buchsbaum This issue we have the following developments of note: Public Bidding-Favoritism-ABA Model Procurement Code Shortly after irregularities came to light during discovery, Kenton County, Kentucky, agreed to pay $850,000 to settle a suit by the two offerors who had been eliminated from the competitive negotiation process prior to the contract award. The discovery showed that the county judge/executive had met with the president of the winning offeror on the evening following a day-long series of presentations by each of the three offerors on the projects. The judge had even permitted the winner to inspect his competitors' offers. The settlement came within two months after this revelation. The county's Procurement Code and Ethics Code, which provided the legal foundation for the settlement, were based in part on the ABA Model Procurement Code, published by this Section. Wessels Constr. and Devel. Co. v. Kenton Co., Kenton Cir. Ct., No. 96-CI-02041. (Submitted by Larry Ethridge, Louisville, Kentucky.) Property Taxation-Nursing Homes-Religious Exemption On April 3, 1998, the North Carolina Supreme Court, over strong dissent, voided that state's property tax exemption for church affiliated nursing homes. The court found that the preference for religiously connected homes over similar nonprofit but secular ones violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. In re Appeal of Springmoor, Inc., 66 U.S.L.W. 1635. Takings/Inverse Condemnation There were two developments in this field so dear to the hearts of land-use lawyers. First, the Michigan Supreme Court has overruled two lower courts in K & K Constr. v. Department of Nat. Resources and held that all three of the developer's vacant parcels had to be considered in determining whether a taking had occurred—they were all part of a comprehensive development proposal, even though zoned for different uses. The court remanded for a determination, under a balancing test, of whether there had been a partial taking of the property since the state regulations had left the three parcels with some remaining economic value. Mich Sup. Ct. No. 106712, 3/24/98, described in Land Use L. Rep., 4/15/98, at 62. Also, as was reported at the Section meeting in Amelia Island, the U.S. Supreme Court in late March granted certiorari to a taking case, City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey. The decision below is 95 F.3d 1422 (9th Cir. 1996); the Supreme Court docket number is 97-1235. Signs-First Amendment Shedding new light on the law, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled that a ban on neon signs did not violate the First Amendment. Nashville, Indiana, successfully argued that its unique scenic and architectural character and safety concerns justified this restriction on commercial speech. Wallace v. Brown Area Planning Comm., 689 N.E.2d 491. Topless Dancing-Equal Protection Finally, the Second Circuit has sustained New York City's zoning restrictions on female topless dancing establishments. Since there is a difference between female and male breast exposure, the city could restrict the former without regulating the latter. Buzzetti v. City of New York, No. 2312 (3/20/98). As you can see from the public bid item above, your contributions will be used and credited. Please send them in. State & Local Law News home page | Table of Contents