JONES DAY TALKS®: Real Assets Roundup: A New Look at Real Estate, Energy, and Infrastructure - Episode 1
From Permits to Penalties: A Deep Dive Into Coastal Development Law
Taking the Pulse, A Health Care and Life Sciences Video Podcast | SCbio 2025 Preview with President & CEO James Chappell
Dinsmore's Sam Hargitt on working with some of Indianapolis' top developers and investors
Business Better Podcast Episode: Distressed Office Buildings: A Look at Workout and Enforcement
Cornerstone Research Experts in Focus: Mark Garmaise
Navigating Legal Risk in Real Estate Development - Speaking of Litigation Podcast
Stroock Presents: GOAT Town, Episode 4: Office-to-Residential Conversions in NYC – Magic Bullet or Merely One Piece of the Puzzle?
Business Better Podcast Episode: Affordable Housing in Chinatown, Los Angeles: How To Better Serve Your Community
Stroock Presents: GOAT Town, Episode 3, Part 2: “NYC's One-of-a-Kind Agency to Drive Economic Growth”
Can Office to Residential Conversions Help Revitalize Downtown? (Audio)
Developing Philly: The State of Philadelphia's Tax Abatements in 2022
Creative Reuse: The Opportunities and Challenges of Converting Office Space to Residential
Office-to-Apartment Conversions – A Good Idea, but Tricky to Pull Off (Audio)
Into the Future: Modern Partnerships in Health Care Construction Delivery
On-Demand Webinar | Living on the Edge: Managing Sea Level Rise in California
Law Brief®: David Pfeffer and Richard Schoenstein Discuss the Future of Offices
JONES DAY TALKS®: Tax Credits: The Original ESG Investment?
Law Brief: Urban Living After COVID-19
Volatile Times in Vapor Intrusion Regulation: A Legal and Technical Update
In the last legislative session, the Philadelphia City Council passed several significant bills affecting real estate development and zoning, which are important for property owners and developers to understand....more
The 2025 Texas Legislative Regular Session has wrapped up, introducing new laws that will directly affect real estate investors and developers starting September 1, 2025. Winstead continued its long-standing commitment to...more
On Tuesday, June 24, 2025, the California Court of Appeal heard argument in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado. You may recall that the California Court of Appeal previously held that legislatively enacted development impact fees...more
California stands at a pivotal juncture in 2025, confronting an array of environmental and housing challenges. As usual, the California State Legislature is considering numerous strategies to address these issues. This year’s...more
Senate Bill (SB) 937 (Wiener) went into effect on January 1, 2025. SB 937 eases the financial burden on residential developers by prohibiting local agencies from imposing fees on specified residential development projects...more
The United States Supreme Court’s most recent Takings case, Sheetz v. El Dorado County, California enunciated a seemingly simple holding, that legislatively-imposed development fees are not, as such, exempt from analysis...more
On September 9, 2024, the Osceola Board of County Commissioners voted to approve an increase to County mobility impact fees, which will substantially increase the cost of development in the County. Impact fees are a one-time...more
Osceola County and St. Cloud have proposed increases to some of their impact fees as further discussed in “Osceola County, St. Cloud, and Mt. Dora Propose Massive Increases to Impact Fees”. After hosting required public...more
Osceola County, City of St. Cloud, and City of Mt. Dora are all set to vote on proposed increases to impact fees that, if approved, will substantially increase the cost of development in these jurisdictions. Below is...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion that may significantly affect how development impact fees are assessed in California. In Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, the Court unanimously held that...more
In a typical permitting process, the local government may place certain conditions on issuing a building permit to further a legitimate public purpose. While the local government has “substantial authority to regulate land...more
In April, the Supreme Court held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California that the Takings Clause of the United States Constitution applies to legislative land-use conditions, such as impact fees. This will result in...more
In a highly-anticipated case revolving around development impact fees, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously held in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, 144 S.Ct. 893 (2024) that legislatively-imposed conditions on building permits...more
The U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has again rejected a state's narrow interpretation of the constitutional limits on government's ability to impose development conditions. A unanimous SCOTUS ruled on April 12 in favor of the...more
The US Supreme Court’s decision in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado earlier this month will affect how local governments impose impact fees in the future and who pays certain development costs....more
Undoubtedly, development impact fees (DIFs) can make or break the pro forma of any development project. Until this month, developers hoping to challenge the assessment of project-related DIFs were often limited in the causes...more
The unanimous opinion holds that development impact fees established through the legislative process are subject to constitutional scrutiny as potential regulatory takings. The Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the...more
When the government wants to take private property for a public project, it must compensate the owner at fair market value. The just compensation concept comes from the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause, which provides: “nor...more
Last week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California, in which the Court held that for the purpose of a takings claim there is no distinction in whether permit conditions...more
The Sheetz v. County of El Dorado decision will create uncertainty in California, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado and many other states as cities, counties, developers and property owners reexamine whether existing impact fee...more
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) held that the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause does not distinguish between legislative and administrative land‑use permit conditions. Building permit...more
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on April 12, 2024, that the "Takings Clause" enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution applies equally to legislative and administratively imposed land use permitting fees. Since...more
On April 12, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Sheetz v. Cnty. Of El Dorado, California, 22-1074 (U.S. Apr. 12, 2024) and unanimously held that legislative actions can still be unconstitutional exactions...more
On April 12, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its much-anticipated ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, U.S. No. 22-1074 (petition for certiorari granted 9/29/23) (Sheetz). The case concerned the...more
On April 12, 2024, the United States Supreme Court decided Sheetz v. El Dorado County, No. 22-1074, holding that the Takings Clause “does not distinguish between legislative and administrative permit conditions,” but instead...more