THE COMMONS OF LAKE HOUSTON, LTD. v. CITY OF HOUSTON, TEXAS

Supreme Court of Texas ══════════

No. 23-0474

══════════

The Commons of Lake Houston, Ltd., Petitioner,

v.

City of Houston, Texas,

Respondent

═══════════════════════════════════════ On Petition for Review from the Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas ═══════════════════════════════════════

Argued October 31, 2024

JUSTICE BOYD delivered the opinion of the Court. After Hurricane Harvey struck Texas in 2017, the City of Houston amended its ordinances to increase the elevation requirements for construction in a floodplain. A developer sued the City for inverse condemnation, alleging that the amendments caused a regulatory taking of the developer's property under the Texas Constitution. The trial court denied the City's plea to the jurisdiction, but the court of appeals reversed and dismissed the case, holding the developer cannot establish a valid takings claim because the City amended the ordinance

1

2

as a valid exercise of its police power and to comply with a federal flood-insurance program. Although these facts are undisputed, we do not agree that they negate the possibility of a taking. Nor do we agree with the City that the developer's claims are unripe or that the developer lacks standing to assert them. We thus reverse the court of appeals' judgment and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

I.

Background

The Commons of Lake Houston first began developing a 3,300-acre residential community near Lake Houston in 1993. Focusing on one phase at a time, it has subdivided, platted, and cleared the raw land in sections, adding streets and utilities and then selling empty lots to buyers and builders who design and construct the homes. This case involves a section called The Crossing, a 300-plus-acre area that includes many of the project's most valuable lots. The Commons's business plan relied on revenue from the earlier phases to finance the subsequent phases and ultimately produce profits from the last phases, including The Crossing. The Crossing's lakefront and lakeview lots are more valuable than most, but they also lie in areas colloquially referred to as the 100- and 500-year floodplains.¹

3

Part of the overall project, including The Crossing, is within the City of Houston's city limits. Through the years, the City has generally supported the project, approving a municipal utility district, agreeing to provide utility services, approving a general plan²for each section, and granting The Commons various permits and waivers. In 2017, the City approved a general plan for 122.5 acres in The Crossing, which included plans for water, sanitary sewer, drainage, and streets for 531 lots. After obtaining the City's approval, The Commons proceeded to invest over $1 million in developing The Crossing.

Because The Crossing lies within the floodplain, however, the City code requires The Commons to obtain a floodplain-development permit or a variance from that requirement.³The City-approved general plan was based on the code's requirement that foundation slabs be constructed at an elevation at least one foot above the 100-year

"focuses on 'special flood hazard areas,' which are defined as places that have a one percent chance each year of flooding ('1%-chance floodplains')"). Like the parties (and many others), we will refer to the 1-percent-chance and 0.2-percent-chance floodplains as the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, without intending to support the misconception that these areas will flood only once every 100 or 500 years. See Klein, NFIP at Fifty, 31 GEO. ENV'T L. REV. at 303 ("Although colloquially referred to as the 'hundred-year floodplain,' these areas have a one percent chance of flooding each year, making it possible to have 'hundred year' floods in successive years."); Flood Zones, FEMA (July 8, 2020), https://www.fema.gov/about/glossary/flood-zones ("The 1-percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100-year flood.").

4

floodplain.⁴In August 2017, however, Hurricane Harvey struck the Houston area, dumping over sixty inches of rain, breaking flood-damage records, and directly causing at least sixty-eight deaths.⁵In response, and anticipating that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would revise its maps to identify new "special flood hazard areas,"⁶the City amended its ordinances in April 2018. As amended, the City code now requires that foundation slabs be constructed at an elevation at least two feet above the 500-year floodplain.⁷ The Commons asserts that the amendment increased the required slab elevations in The Crossing by an average of 5.5 feet and, as a result, rendered 557 of the 669 total lots (and over seventy-five percent of the total acreage) undevelopable. Because of the new elevation requirement, The Commons alleges it had to cancel development and sales contracts, lost $4.4 million in revenue and $1.8 million in bond reimbursements, and had to borrow over $1 million to cover cash flow. Ultimately, The Commons asserts, the amendment destroyed its expected profits from the entire 3,300-acre project.

5

The Commons filed this suit against the City in 2020,⁸asserting that the amended ordinance caused a regulatory taking for which the Texas Constitution requires reasonable compensation. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing the claim was unripe because the City had not yet denied a permit and The Commons had not sought a variance. The City also argued that governmental immunity bars the suit because The Commons failed to allege a valid takings claim. The trial court denied the City's jurisdictional plea, the City took an interlocutory appeal, and the court of appeals reversed. 698 S.W.3d 572, 588 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2023). Without reaching or addressing the City's ripeness argument, the court of appeals held that The Commons failed to assert a valid takings claim because the City amended the ordinance as a valid exercise of its police power and to

"track" the criteria of the federal National Flood Insurance Program. Id. at 585-86. We granted The Commons's petition for review.

II.

Texas Takings Claims

Governmental immunity protects the City against—and deprives the courts of jurisdiction over—this suit unless that immunity has been waived. City of Houston v. Carlson, 451 S.W.3d 828, 830 (Tex. 2014). The Texas takings clause—Article I, Section 17 of the Texas Constitution— waives the City's immunity and establishes the courts' jurisdiction, but

6

only if The Commons has alleged a legally viable takings claim. Id.⁹ We thus begin by considering what constitutes a viable Texas takings claim and then address the court of appeals' holding that The Commons's claim is not viable because the City amended its ordinances in the exercise of its police power and to comply with the National Flood Insurance Program.

Article I, Section 17 provides: "No person's property shall be taken, damaged, or destroyed for or applied to public use without adequate compensation being made, unless by the consent of such person . . . ." TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17. This provision of the Texas Bill of Rights reflects that the "right to own, use, and enjoy one's private property is a fundamental right," City of Baytown v. Schrock, 645 S.W.3d 174, 179 (Tex. 2022) (citing Hearts Bluff Game Ranch, Inc. v. State, 381 S.W.3d 468, 476 (Tex. 2012)), and "among our most cherished liberties,"

Carlson, 451 S.W.3d at 830. But the clause does not prohibit the government from taking, damaging, destroying, or applying private property; it instead requires that any such action be for a public use and that the government adequately compensate the owner for the property taken. KMS Retail Rowlett, LP v. City of Rowlett, 593 S.W.3d 175, 181

7

(Tex. 2019).¹⁰The clause thus seeks to balance a citizen's private-property rights against the "inexorable" "demands of progress"

and the need to encourage "public improvements" by requiring "all citizens [to share] equally in the cost of progress." DuPuy v. City of Waco,

396 S.W.2d 103, 106 (Tex. 1965).¹¹ An owner who believes the government has taken its property may bring an "inverse" condemnation claim to recover adequate compensation. Kopplow, 399 S.W.3d at 536.¹²To prevail on an inverse-condemnation claim, the owner must plead and prove that

(1) the government engaged in affirmative conduct¹³(2) that

8

proximately caused¹⁴(3) the taking, damaging, destroying, or applying¹⁵

(4) of specific private property¹⁶(5) for a public use¹⁷(6) without paying the owner adequate compensation¹⁸(7) and did so intentionally or with knowledge that the result was substantially certain to occur.¹⁹Whether a compensable taking has occurred is a question of law for the courts to decide,²⁰although a factfinder may need to resolve factual disputes before the court can decide the ultimate legal question.²¹ At this stage in this case, the parties dispute only the third element: whether the City's amendment to its floodplain ordinance caused a taking, damaging, destroying, or applying of The Commons's property. We have recognized two broad types of takings: (1) a physical

9

occupation, appropriation, or invasion of property²²and (2) a regulatory action that is so restrictive or intrusive "that it effectively 'takes' the property." Jim Olive Photography v. Univ. of Hous. Sys., 624 S.W.3d 764, 771-72 (Tex. 2021) (citing Murr v. Wisconsin, 582 U.S. 383, 393 (2017)).²³The Commons asserts only a regulatory taking, which we have agreed may result when the government denies a development permit. Westgate, Ltd. v. State, 843 S.W.2d 448, 452 (Tex. 1992). Finding guidance in United States Supreme Court decisions construing the federal Constitution's takings clause,²⁴we have recognized that a regulatory taking may occur when a law or ordinance

(1) requires an owner to suffer a permanent physical loss or invasion of its property (sometimes called a Loretto taking),²⁵(2) completely deprives an owner of all economically beneficial use of its property (sometimes called a Lucas taking),²⁶or (3) unreasonably interferes with

10

the owner's right to use and enjoy its property (often called a Penn Central taking).²⁷Day, 369 S.W.3d at 838-39 (quoting Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., 544 U.S. 528, 540, 537 (2005)); see Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 935-36.²⁸Loretto takings and Lucas takings constitute "per se" takings. Sheffield, 140 S.W.3d at 671.²⁹Identifying a Penn Central taking, however, requires the court to engage in an "ad hoc" and "situation- specific" factual inquiry, weighing multiple factors including (1) the regulation's economic impact on the owner,³⁰(2) the extent to which the mere "token interest." Sheffield, 140 S.W.3d at 671; see Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 936 (explaining that a Lucas taking occurs when the regulatory action

"totally destroy[s] the property's value").

11

regulation interferes with the owner's reasonable investment-backed expectations,³¹and (3) the character of the government action.³²Penn Cent., 438 U.S. at 130-31.³³The Commons alleges in this case that the City's ordinance amendment either completely deprived it of all economically beneficial use of its property (a Lucas taking) or unreasonably interfered with its right to use and enjoy its property (a Penn Central taking).

but also of the remaining value as compared to what the owner initially invested in the property. Sheffield, 140 S.W.3d at 677. It thus may involve consideration of the owner's investment profits or losses. Id.

12

Unlike the federal Constitution, the Texas Constitution expressly requires compensation for property that is "damaged" or "destroyed for or applied to a public use." TEX. CONST. art. I, § 17. Our Constitution thus requires compensation "in more circumstances than the United States Constitution." Schrock, 645 S.W.3d at 179.³⁴As the City insists, we have referred to the "damaged" provision as applying when the government "physically damages private property." Jennings, 142 S.W.3d at 314 (emphasis added). But as The Commons insists, we have also suggested that property may be "damaged" by a non-physical interference with its use and enjoyment, such as an unreasonable deprivation of access to the property. See DuPuy, 396 S.W.2d at 108

13

("[D]iminishment in the value of property resulting from a loss of access constitutes damage." (emphasis added)).³⁵

At this stage of this case, however, we need not conduct a Penn Central-takings analysis or consider how the Texas Constitution's

"damaged" provision affects that analysis because the City has never raised, and neither the trial court nor the court of appeals have addressed, those issues. In the trial court and on appeal, the City argued only that The Commons failed to allege a valid takings claims because, as a matter of law, a regulation can never cause a compensable taking if it (1) results from a valid exercise of the government's police power or, more specifically, (2) is designed to ensure compliance with the criteria required for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. The trial court rejected these arguments, but the court of appeals agreed with both. 698 S.W.3d at 583, 587. We agree with the trial court.

14

The City argues, and the court of appeals agreed, that The Commons cannot establish a taking because the City amended the ordinance "to promote the public health, safety and general welfare and to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas." Id. at 587 (quoting HOUS., TEX., CODE § 19-1(a)). In the court's view, the amendment constitutes "a valid exercise of the city's police power" and thus "does not constitute a taking." Id. at 588 (quoting City of College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S.W.2d 802, 805 (Tex. 1984)). We have rejected the proposition, however, that a valid exercise of the police power can never cause a taking.

As we have often explained, all privately owned property "is held subject to the valid exercise of the police power." Turtle Rock, 680 S.W.2d at 804 (citing Lombardo v. City of Dallas, 73 S.W.2d 475, 478 (Tex. 1934)).³⁶The government must exercise its police power to "satisfy its responsibilities," and this commonly requires the imposition of restrictions on the use of private property. Carlson, 451 S.W.3d at 831.

"Governments interfere with private property rights every day. Some of those intrusions are compensable; most are not." Jim Olive Photography, 624 S.W.3d at 771. Typically, when the government exercises its police power to, for example, abate a public nuisance or implement and enforce common zoning laws, no compensable taking occurs even though property owners lose some control over their

15

property rights. Id.³⁷And this is true even when the government amends a regulation to impose a new restriction that previously did not exist. Quick v. City of Austin, 7 S.W.3d 109, 124-25 (Tex. 1998). But we have long rejected "the notion that the government's duty to pay for taking property rights is excused by labeling the taking as an exercise of police powers." Steele, 603 S.W.2d at 789.³⁸Indeed, whether a regulation constitutes a valid exercise of the police power—or promotes any other important public policy, purpose, or interest—is simply irrelevant to whether the regulation causes a compensable taking. Lingle, 544 U.S. at 543.³⁹If a regulation does not promote a valid public purpose, the taking is simply impermissible because it is not a taking for a "public use," and "[n]o amount of compensation can

16

authorize such action." Id.⁴⁰So whether a regulation constitutes a valid exercise of the police power "is a separate question" than whether it results in a compensable taking. Loretto, 458 U.S. at 425. We do not even attempt to "compartmentalize" a government regulation as being either a taking or an exercise of the police power because of "the manifest illusoriness of the distinctions" between the two. DuPuy, 396 S.W.2d at 107.⁴¹Simply put, any attempt to create a dichotomy between takings and police-power regulations "has not proved helpful in determining when private citizens affected by governmental actions must be compensated." Steele, 603 S.W.2d at 789 (citing Teague, 570 S.W.2d at 389; DuPuy, 396 S.W.2d at 103; San Antonio River Auth. v. Lewis, 363 S.W.2d 444 (Tex. 1963); Brazos River Auth. v. City of Graham, 354 S.W.2d 99 (Tex. 1962)).

17

The court of appeals relied in this case, however, on our statement in Turtle Rock that "[a] city is not required to make compensation for losses occasioned by the proper and reasonable exercise of its police power." 698 S.W.3d at 586 (quoting Turtle Rock, 680 S.W.2d at 804). The key to that statement, however, are the words "proper" and

"reasonable." If the government exercises its police power to limit private-property rights in a way that causes no "unreasonable interference" under Penn Central, then no compensable taking occurs. But as we stated in the very next sentence in Turtle Rock, we have

"refused to establish a bright line for distinguishing between an exercise of the police power which does constitute a taking and one which does not. Instead, the cases demonstrate that a careful analysis of the facts is necessary in each case of this kind." Turtle Rock, 680 S.W.2d at 804 (citing Teague, 570 S.W.2d at 391; DuPuy, 396 S.W.2d at 107). A city's exercise of its police power may be legally valid and proper and yet cause a taking if it causes a permanent physical invasion of private property (a Loretto taking), completely deprives an owner of all economically beneficial use of its property (a Lucas taking), or unreasonably interferes with the owner's right to use and enjoy its property (a Penn Central taking).

Turtle Rock involved the fourth type of regulatory taking, a land-use-exaction claim⁴²challenging a city ordinance that required developers to either dedicate a portion of their land as park land or pay the city money as a condition to the city's approval of a subdivision plat.

18

Id. at 803. The trial court and court of appeals held that the requirement caused a compensable taking as a matter of law, but we reversed, holding that the exaction requirement did not constitute a taking if it was substantially related to the people's general welfare and was reasonable and not arbitrary. Id. at 805. We held that the ordinance was not "unconstitutionally arbitrary or unreasonable on its face," but we remanded the case for the trial court to consider whether, under those facts, the ordinance was "unduly harsh" or created "a disproportionate burden" on the developer. Id. at 806.⁴³Turtle Rock does not support the court of appeals' holding in this case, and our prior decisions have repeatedly and consistently rejected it. We reaffirm today that a regulation can cause a compensable Texas taking even if it results from a valid exercise of the government's police power. The court of appeals found it particularly relevant, however, that the City amended its floodplain ordinance for the specific and express purpose of ensuring that its residents can obtain property insurance through the federal National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).⁴⁴

19

Relying primarily on the Fifth Circuit's decision in Adolph v. Federal Emergency Management Agency, 854 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1988), the court held that the amended ordinance could not have caused a taking because, as a matter of law, "requiring compliance with local laws consistent with FEMA/NFIP requirements does not constitute a taking."

698 S.W.3d at 583. Again, we disagree. Adolph was a class-action lawsuit against both FEMA and a Louisiana parish in which property owners complained that the parish's adoption of local regulations requiring compliance with FEMA's criteria for participation in the NFIP caused a taking by rendering their property unmarketable. 854 F.2d at 733-34. The trial court dismissed the claims against FEMA, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed. It first concluded that FEMA could not be liable for a taking because "the NFIP represents a voluntary federal program" with which the parish was not required to comply unless it wanted to make federally subsidized insurance available to its residents under the NFIP. Id. at 735-36. Because "the parish was not compelled to participate in the NFIP," the court held, "FEMA could not be charged with an unconstitutional taking of property, even if, arguendo, the elevation requirements otherwise could be shown to constitute an actual deprivation without NFIP in 1968 to ensure adequate insurance coverage for properties subject to damaging floods, require owners of such properties (rather than the public at large) to bear the expense of such damage, minimize federal costs of responding to flood disasters, and ultimately discourage development in flood-prone areas. See Klein, NFIP at Fifty, 31 GEO. ENV'T L. REV. at 288-90, 295, 314. The NFIP makes federally subsidized insurance available to property owners but only if local regulations prohibit development within the 100-year floodplain. See id. at 296, 300-03.

20

compensation." Id. at 736 (emphasis added). Based on this reasoning, the Fifth Circuit concluded that "the NFIP, when operating precisely as intended by Congress, results in no unconstitutional taking of plaintiffs' property, regardless of state law." Id. at 737 (citing Tex. Landowners Rights Ass'n v. Harris, 453 F. Supp. 1025, 1032-33 (D.D.C. 1978), aff'd,

598 F.2d 311 (D.C. Cir. 1979)). The Fifth Circuit went on to observe in Adolph that the "plaintiffs' chance of prevailing on the merits here is not increased by having joined the parish as a party-defendant, because even when the local government is sued directly, the same rejection of the takings claim obtains." Id. at 738. The court of appeals in this case relied on this statement to support its conclusion that Adolph stands for the proposition that any takings claim complaining of a local ordinance adopted to comply with the NFIP's requirements must fail as a matter of law. 698 S.W.3d at 586. But that's not what the Fifth Circuit held in Adolph. The Fifth Circuit discussed several decisions in which courts found that local ordinances adopted for participation in the NFIP did not cause an unconstitutional taking, but the courts in those cases concluded that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a taking under Loretto, Lucas, or Penn Central,⁴⁵not that they could never establish

45 The Fifth Circuit relied heavily in Adolph on the decision in Texas Landowners, but even in that case the district court found it relevant that

"plaintiffs do not allege that their land has become useless" or "valueless" (and thus did not support a Lucas taking) and concluded that "this case turns upon the usual balancing test of social policy and public interest versus the rights of a landowner to be unencumbered in the use of his property." Tex. Landowners,

21

such a taking as a matter of law. Adolph, 854 F.2d at 738-40. The Fifth Circuit thus concluded in Adolph that a local regulation that "tracks the invasion of its property under Loretto, see Maple Leaf Invs., Inc. v. Dep't of Ecology, 565 P.2d 1162, 1165 (Wash. 1977) ("There is no physical invasion of appellant's property."); (2) does not deprive the owner of all beneficial use of its property under Lucas, see Pope v. City of Atlanta, 249 S.E.2d 16, 21 (Ga. 1978) (holding plaintiff could not establish a taking because flood-control measures "only regulate her use of her property and do not deprive her of all her rights in the property"); Maple Leaf, 565 P.2d at 1166 (noting no evidence that regulations "prohibit the appellant from making a profitable use of its property"); Dur-Bar Realty Co. v. City of Utica, 394 N.Y.S.2d 913, 918 (App. Div. 1977) (noting that flood-control regulations did not "destroy the economic utility of the subject parcel"), aff'd, 380 N.E.2d 328 (N.Y. 1978); Grenier v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 814 N.E.2d 1154, 1160-61 (Mass. App. Ct. 2004) (noting restrictions did not deprive owner of "all economically beneficial use" of her lot, which retained "a residual value of $23,000," even though it deprived her "of the most profitable use"), aff'd sub nom. Gove v. Zoning Bd. of Appeals of Chatham, 831 N.E.2d 865 (Mass. 2005); Turner v. County of Del Norte, 24 Cal. App. 3d 311, 315 (Ct. App. 1972) (noting that owners "may use their lands in a number of ways which may be of economic benefit to them");

(3) does not unreasonably interfere with the owner's use and enjoyment of its property under Penn Central, see Responsible Citizens in Opposition to Flood Plain Ordinance v. City of Asheville, 302 S.E.2d 204, 210-11 (N.C. 1983) (concluding no taking under Penn Central because "each plaintiff . . . continues to have a 'practical' use for his property of 'reasonable value,'" even "assuming that the cost of complying with the land-use regulations is prohibitive . . . and recognizing that the market value of plaintiffs' properties has diminished"

(quoting Helms v. City of Charlotte, 122 S.E.2d 817 (N.C. 1961))); or (4) does not proximately cause the owner's injury, see Maple Leaf, 565 P.2d at 1166 (observing it was "[n]ature," and "not the State," that "placed appellant's property in the path of floods," such that even without the challenged regulation "the property would still be subject to physical realities"); Turner,

24 Cal. App. 3d at 314 (noting evidence "of a frequency of flooding which would almost certainly eventually destroy any permanent residences built on this land," thus establishing that the zoning ordinance at issue imposed "no restrictions more stringent than the existing danger demands"). But they do not support the court of appeals' conclusion that landowners can never prevail on their claim if the challenged flood-control measure is adopted to comply with the NFIP.

22

criteria of the NFIP does not, on its face, effect a taking in violation of the fifth and fourteenth amendments" but the "validity under state law of the actual application of this ordinance to a particular piece of property depends upon the facts involved in each case." Id. at 740 (emphases added).

Here, The Commons contends that the amended floodplain ordinance effects a taking as applied to the lots in The Crossing, not that it effects a taking on its face. Whether it can prevail on that claim depends on whether it can support its allegations that the ordinance deprives it of all economic benefit under Lucas or unreasonably interferes with its use and enjoyment of the property (or causes

"damage") under Penn Central,⁴⁶not on whether the ordinance was designed to comply with the NFIP's criteria.⁴⁷We do not in any way

23

prejudge the merits of those issues today, as neither the trial court nor the court of appeals has addressed them. We hold only that a regulatory taking can occur even when the regulation at issue is intended to promote compliance with the federal flood-insurance program.

III.

Ripeness and Standing

In addition to arguing that The Commons has not asserted a valid takings claim, the City argued in the trial court and in the court of appeals that the claim is not ripe. The court of appeals did not reach that issue,⁴⁸but the City raises it in this Court as an alternative ground for affirming the court's judgment. In addition, the City argues for the first time in this Court that The Commons lacks standing to pursue its claim. We disagree on both counts.

Ripeness is an element of subject-matter jurisdiction that presents a question of law we review de novo. Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at

928. "In order for a regulatory takings claim to be ripe, there must be a final decision regarding the application of the regulations to the and to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the dangers of flooding." Id. at 584. But FEMA never made the anticipated revisions, so the City's amended ordinance imposes greater restrictions than the NFIP imposes. Because we conclude that an ordinance can cause a compensable taking even if it exactly tracks the NFIP's requirements, we need not address this argument.

24

property at issue." Id. at 929.⁴⁹A claim is not ripe without a "final and authoritative determination" because a court "cannot determine whether a regulation has gone 'too far' unless it knows how far the regulation goes." Id. (quoting MacDonald, Sommer & Frates v. Yolo County, 477 U.S. 340, 348 (1986)).

To obtain a final determination, the property owner generally must submit at least one application for the permitted use and seek a variance if the application is denied. Id.⁵⁰But the "finality requirement is relatively modest," Pakdel v. City & County of San Francisco, 594 U.S. 474, 478 (2021), and "futile variance requests or re-applications are not required," Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 929. A subsequent application or variance request is "futile" when the government has made it clear that the owner cannot obtain approval for its desired use, that its request for a permit has been "definitively rejected," or that any subsequent request would make "no difference." Herrington v. County of Sonoma, 857 F.2d 567, 569-70 (9th Cir. 1988). The government may demonstrate such finality through its interactions and communications with the owner, see Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 931-32, or even through its briefs and arguments in the appellate court, Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 621. Only "de

25

facto" finality is required, demonstrating that the government has

"committed to a position." Pakdel, 594 U.S. at 479. In this case, The Commons first filed suit against the City in 2018, even before the amended ordinance became effective. The City filed a plea to the jurisdiction, arguing that the claim was not ripe because The Commons had not yet sought or been denied a floodplain-development permit or a variance. See Commons I, 587 S.W.3d at 501. The trial court denied the City's plea, but the City took an interlocutory appeal, and the court of appeals reversed, dismissing The Commons's claims as unripe. Id. at 502.

The Commons then made a series of attempts to obtain a floodplain-development permit. In November 2019, it submitted a document requesting approval for slab elevations at the former level, one foot above the 100-year floodplain. The City never responded to that application. The City then told The Commons that the City's permit process required building-specific plans and that there was no process by which The Commons could obtain a general floodplain development permit for the entire development. The Commons attempted to apply for a site-wide permit anyway. It filed its application in February 2020, again seeking a "blanket finished floor elevation [one foot] above FEMA current [base flood elevation]." The City rejected the application because it lacked "a complete set of plans for a specific building."⁵¹The Commons

26

made a second attempt the next month, submitting documents showing proposed finished floor elevations for each lot, and it was again rejected for not having plans for specific structures. The Commons made repeated attempts to discuss the problem with the City from April 21, 2020, until August 3, 2020, but never received any further guidance. Finally, in late 2020, The Commons submitted an amended general plan for The Crossing that it believed would comply with the City's amended floodplain ordinance. Under this plan, The Commons would develop only 76.5 of the original 122.5 acres, would sell less than half of the original number of lots, and would not sell any of the most-valuable lakefront lots at all, essentially depriving The Commons of the project's anticipated profits. The City approved the amended general plan but still declined to act on any permit application that did not detail proposed structures and elevations on the lots. The Commons filed this (its second) suit in November 2020. The City finally responded to The Commons in March 2021, well over a year after The Commons first sought permit approval. Even then, the City told The Commons that an application must include "a site plan that depicted the lot, the proposed location of the structure relative to the lot lines, and the footprint of the structure, as well as building elevations indicating the foundation type, elevation of the finished grade adjacent to the structure, and the required minimum flood protection elevation."

And the City argues, for the first time after two lawsuits spanning over six years, that The Commons will never be able to obtain a floodplain- the City suggested to The Commons that the application would have been accepted with any other documents except structural plans.

27

development permit because it, as a developer, "has no right to obtain the permit." Tellingly, the City argues in this Court that The Commons's regulatory-takings claim "is not ripe on any questions presented and cannot ever ripen."

Perhaps if the City had ever told The Commons that it was requesting the wrong permit or applying in the wrong manner, the City could have an argument that it was never given the opportunity to grant or deny The Commons relief. See Mayhew, 964 S.W.2d at 929. What the City has instead is a paper trail down which it dragged The Commons for months, if not years, with no suggestion of compromise or a final determination. See Palazzolo, 533 U.S. at 620 ("[A] landowner may not establish a taking before a land-use authority has the opportunity, using its own reasonable procedures, to decide and explain the reach of a challenged regulation." (emphasis added)). Nevertheless, the City's assertions that The Commons simply has "no right" to obtain a floodplain-development permit and that its claim "cannot ever ripen"

clearly indicates absolute finality. Although the City has not yet formally denied a permit, it "may not burden property by imposition of repetitive or unfair land-use procedures in order to avoid a final decision." Id. Under these facts, we conclude that The Commons's inverse-condemnation claim is ripe for adjudication.⁵²

28

The City argues for the first time in this Court that The Commons lacks standing to pursue its claim.⁵³Specifically, the City contends that The Commons lacks standing because it possessed only a mere expectancy, and not a vested interest, in the right to develop its property under the old elevation requirements and because its claims are not redressable by the courts. We disagree.

Generally, a "vested" right requires "something more than a mere expectancy based upon an anticipated continuance of an existing law."

Honors Acad., Inc. v. Tex. Educ. Agency, 555 S.W.3d 54, 61 (Tex. 2018). But The Commons is not suing the City to enforce a right to develop its property under the old ordinance. Instead, it is suing for damages in the form of the compensation the Texas takings clause requires the City to pay if, in fact, the amended ordinance has taken, damaged, or destroyed the property for a public use. To have standing to recover for a Texas taking, The Commons need only establish that it has a vested

"ownership interest in the property taken." Tex. Dep't of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 644 (Tex. 2004).

Similarly, the City contends that The Commons lacks standing to challenge the amended ordinance because The Commons does not build homes on its lots and thus has no legal interest in an ordinance that restricts where homes can be built. But again, The Commons is suing the City to recover compensation for the damages it contends the

29

amended ordinance has caused to The Commons's property interest, not to challenge or invalidate the amended ordinance. The Commons indisputably possesses a vested interest in the property at issue and in the property's value.

Finally, we agree, of course, that "[c]onstitutional standing requires a concrete injury that is both traceable to the defendant's conduct and redressable by court order." Tex. Bd. of Chiropractic Exam'rs v. Tex. Med. Ass'n, 616 S.W.3d 558, 567 (Tex. 2021). The City argues that The Commons's claim in this case is not redressable because courts cannot determine whether the amended ordinance has caused a compensable taking when The Commons cannot provide specific information about proposed structures and elevations to enable a court to determine how the City would apply the amended ordinance. To the extent we understand this argument, for which the City relies on Urban Developers LLC v. City of Jackson, 468 F.3d 281 (5th Cir. 2006), it merely represents an alternative attempt to challenge ripeness. See id. at 287 (agreeing that none of the owner's claims "were ripe for review"), 294 (noting that the city "has not made a final decision on whether to condemn the property[] and has done nothing more than state its intent to proceed with condemnation"). We conclude that The Commons's takings claim is redressable because, if the amended ordinance has caused a compensable taking, damages awarded requiring such compensation "will remedy the alleged injury." Meyers, 548 S.W.3d at 485 (citing Heckman v. Williamson County, 369 S.W.3d 137, 155-56 (Tex. 2012)).

30

IV.

Conclusion

We hold that (1) The Commons can assert a valid regulatory-takings claim even though the City amended the ordinance as a valid exercise of its police power and to ensure compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program, (2) The Commons's claim is ripe for adjudication under these facts, and (3) The Commons has standing to assert its claim. We do not address whether The Commons has in fact asserted a valid regulatory-takings claim under Lucas, Penn Central, or the Texas Constitution's "damaged" provision. We reverse the court of appeals' judgment dismissing the claim and remand the case to the trial court for further proceedings.

Jeffrey S. Boyd

Justice

OPINION DELIVERED: March 21, 2025