George Sheets spent 50 years building and saving money. He had purchased a vacant lot not far from Lake Tahoe and planned to build a home there for his retirement.
But when Sheets went to get a building permit, he was hit with more than $23,000 in unexpected “traffic mitigation” fees. The county council created the fee several years ago to help pay for road construction.
“That's when I started getting angry,” Sheets told Fox News. “I said, 'This is weird.'
Sheetz has built several homes in the past, so he was familiar with typical management processes and costs.
Photo: California man fights $23,000 county fee to build on his land
See more FOX News digital originals here
“'Well, we don't need to build here,'” he recalled county officials saying after he filed a complaint. “'Please go somewhere else.'”
Sheets had already made a down payment on the home, so she paid for it in 2016. But shortly thereafter, he sued the county, claiming that the amount of the fee was not proportionate to the actual impact his project would cause on the road.
“Mr. Sheets thought this was outrageous, that there was no way his small 1,800-square-foot home could cause the kind of impact a car accident would have,” Sheets' attorney Paul Beard told Fox News. ” he said. “What the county did to Mr. Sheets was fundamentally unfair. The county required Mr. Sheets to pay for existing defects on the highway and local roads as a condition of issuing the permit.”
“They asked him to pay for traffic impacts caused by other uses and developments, such as retail development and office development,” Beard continued. “Why did he have to pay for the effects caused by pre-existing defects and other uses?”
George Sheets stands in front of his home in California. Sheets sued El Dorado County, claiming the government made him pay $23,000 in “traffic mitigation” fees for his construction permit. (Courtesy of Pacific Law Foundation)
Ruling brings others closer to being saved from civil forfeiture after police seize Marine veteran's life-saving funds
After a seven-year legal battle that included two decisions against Beard, Beard argued Sheets' case in the Supreme Court earlier this month with co-counsel attorneys from the liberal public interest law firm Pacific Law Foundation. did.
“I never thought something like this would happen.'' [the Supreme Court]”Honestly, I just wanted to fight because I knew what they were doing was wrong,” Sheets said.
But El Dorado County argued that the fee is necessary to pay for road maintenance and is similar to other municipal fees that fund parks, police departments and other services. Beard said the government has every right to collect revenue to fund services like this that benefit the public, but the county's approach is illegal.
”“The county never bothered to tie the more than $23,000 fee to the actual impact of his project. Instead, the county used him as a source of revenue,” Beard told Fox News. Ta.
George Sheets stands with his defense team at the Supreme Court. The California man's case was argued in high court in early January 2024. (Courtesy of Pacific Law Foundation)
Cancer survivor whose home was destroyed by Texas police dealt another blow, but lawyers say city still owes money
Deputy County Commissioner Carla B. Huss declined an interview request for this article, but released a statement: Local ABC affiliate station before the case goes to the Supreme Court.
“The outcome of this case could have national implications for how local governments pay for the provision of necessary public infrastructure such as roads and fire protection equipment,” Hass said earlier this month. Ta. “The county fees under attack have already been upheld by the California Superior Court and the California Court of Appeals, which have confirmed that the county complies with all requirements applicable to the imposition of development impact mitigation fees. ”
Under the constitution's expropriation clause, the government is allowed to confiscate property, including money, but certain conditions must be met. El Dorado County's fees do not take into account how much the project will cost the government, and only new development applicants, not all taxpayers, fund services used by the general public. Beard argued that it was unconstitutional.
“The county's fee is not based on any impact caused by Mr. Sheets,” said Beard, who previously worked at the Pacific Legal Foundation. “They just wanted him to contribute to the previous road deficiencies associated with the road near their home.”
George Sheets drives around his property near Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County, California. He purchased it with the intention of building his retirement home. (Courtesy of Pacific Law Foundation)
Parents group asks Supreme Court to review prestigious high school's allegedly racist admissions policy
“That's unconstitutional,” he continued.
In other words, Beard said, the county would either have to pass the financial burden of building the road onto all taxpayers, or it would have to calculate the financial impact of Sheets' project and charge it appropriately.
“Instead of raising taxes on the general population, which is very unpopular, the county has found a way to target only a select few people in the county,” he said.
The county argued that determining costs on a case-by-case basis would impose a significant burden on the government.
Lower courts, on the other hand, sided with El Dorado County. This is because the legislative branch, not the executive branch, issued the fees.
Sheets' lawsuit contends that the El Dorado government's $23,000 fee did not take into account the actual impact his project would have on county roads. (Courtesy of Pacific Law Foundation)
Ranchers claim the state has flooded their land and killed their animals.The Supreme Court will decide whether Texas has to pay.
“It doesn't matter who is charging the fee, whether it's a bureaucrat at the permitting desk or a legislative body, it's all the same,” Beard said. “To take is to take.”
“All Americans should want their rights to be protected from violations by the government, regardless of which branch of government is committing the violations,” he continued.
If the Supreme Court rules in El Dorado's favor, the lawyer said, governments across the country would be able to impose land use fees without court oversight, effectively locking permit applicants “over the barrel.” I am concerned that this may become possible.
“What this means is that the cost of general public infrastructure projects, which should be borne by the entire population through taxes, will now be borne entirely by new developments and new project applicants,” Beard said.
George Sheets stands on the side of the road at his home near Lake Tahoe. El Dorado County claims it needs “traffic impact mitigation” fees to pay for the road work. (Courtesy of Pacific Law Foundation)
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
But Beard said if Sheets wins, the government would have to prove that the fees it charges for land use permits are related to and proportionate to the project's impacts.
“Ordinary people have to stand up and take a stand and say, 'Hey, I'm not going to put up with this crap anymore,'” Sheets told Fox News. 50 years of construction. “You're just stealing money. You're taking money away from working people.”
“The average everyday working person is trying to survive, trying to find a way to survive and retire comfortably,” Sheets continued. “We can't continue to take money from the working class that supports this country and is screwing them over.”
The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling by June 30th.
