ALERT- Tax Exemption for Municipal Bonds is on the Reconciliation Agenda - Contact your representatives to preserve tax exemption for Municipal Bonds. A loss of the exemption could be very expensive form local government. 6th Circuit - First Amendment - Public Records Most of us know about Zillow and the huge amount of information it provides. Much of that information about taxes comes from public records. The lay of the land from the opinion: "Kentucky's Open Records Act ("KORA") provides access to public records. It distinguishes between requestors with commercial and non[1]commercial purposes and permits agencies to impose enhanced fees on requestors with commercial purposes. The statute provides, however, that commercial purposes do not include publication in a newspaper or periodical, use by a radio or television station in its news or informational programs, or use in litigation or claims settlement." Zillow sought public records regarding taxes for properties and was told it must pay the fees and was not entitled to any of the exemptions. It sued and the lower court found that facially the law violated the constitution in exempting "newspapers". On appeal the panel reviewed the case on an "as applied" basis and concluded that the law as applied did not offend the Constitution. It reversed the lower court, dissolved the injunction, and remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the property appraisers who had been sued. Zillow, Inc. v. Miller, et al., 25a0010p-06.pdf<https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/25a0010p-06.pdf> 4th Circuit - Public Nuisance - Takings - Service Members Relief Act When a property becomes as public nuisance and the city orders demolition, does the property owner have a takings claim and a right to a jury trial? Well, it may depend, but in this case the property owner's claims were spurned by the court. As the court describes it, a person's interests in property can collide with the public's interest to abate nuisances and: "When this collision occurs in Virginia, the government has two options. It can abate a public nuisance without paying compensation. Or it can exercise its right of eminent domain based on the public use of blight elimination. In the latter situation, the government may acquire title to the property, but it must pay the owner just compensation." The city concluded a property was a public nuisance and uninhabitable and ordered abatement through demolition. The property owner sued claiming inverse condemnation and also claimed that the nuisance claim was a pretext for the city's interest in increasing its assessable base by demolishing the property. The case includes discussion of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act as the owner was serving in the Navy and was deployed during portions of the time during which the notices about public nuisance and demolition were given. Long story short, the panel felt that the factual issues of nuisance were waived when the Plaintiff failed to appeal a due process argument regarding lack of notice and the SCRA issues. Thus, as to the pretext claims and inverse condemnation claims, the issues were purely legal and the lower court did not err in ruling for the city. D.A. Real Estate Investment LLC vs. City of Norfolk, 231863.P.pdf<https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinions/231863.P.pdf> Charles W. Thompson, Jr. Of Counsel P: (202) 466-5424 x7110 M: (240) 876-6790 D: (202) 742-1016 [facebook icon]<https://www.facebook.com/InternationalMunicipalLawyersAssociation/>[twitter icon]<https://twitter.com/imlalegal>[linkedin icon]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/international-municipal-lawyers-association-inc./> [logo]<https://imla.org/> 51 Monroe St. Suite 404 Rockville, MD, 20850 www.imla.org<http://www.imla.org/>