On Tuesday, Oct. 4, 2022, the Minnesota Supreme Court will hear Puce v. Burnsville, a case challenging a 2004 law supported by Housing First Minnesota (then-BATC). Under this law, development-related exactions, such as park dedications, must be specific to the project as well as demonstrate an essential nexus and rough proportionality.
Property owner Almir Puce sued Burnsville over being charged a park fee when the city had no stated need for new parks and when the city could not state that his proposed commercial project would create a need for a park. In 2020, the Dakota County District Court sided with the City of Burnsville. In February 2022 the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed the district court ruling.
Puce has the potential to be as important to the housing industry and Housing First Minnesota’s members as Harstad v. Woodbury and Country Joe v. Eagan. Because of the importance of this case, Housing First Minnesota submitted an amicus brief supporting Puce in July.
Housing First Minnesota’s brief in support of Puce outlines the legislative history of the 2004 state law and highlights federal case law.
Stay tuned for more updates on this legal matter.
