[3] Following an initial dismissal, appeal, and remand, the Florida Circuit Court ruled that the District's demand for offsite mitigation violated Nollan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan v. City of Tigard, since the improvements to the District's property lacked either an essential nexus or rough proportionality to the environmental impact of Koontz's proposed development.

Nollan and Dolan also apply when, as here, the challenged condition amounts to a requirement to pay money, rather than to give up an easement over the property.

Alito observed that under this logic the Nollan and Dolan requirements “would be very easy” to avoid, especially since such development impact fees are already “utterly commonplace”.

[10] The takings clause applies because the government’s demand for money here was directly linked to a specific parcel of real property, as distinguished from the benefits in Eastern Enterprises v. Apfel.

Finally, Alito dismissed Kagan’s fear of disrupting local governments because courts in Texas, Illinois, and Ohio had already been applying Nollan and Dolan to monetary exactions.

[11] Believing that the Court will “rue the day” that it discouraged local governments from negotiating with developers, Kagan wrote “the majority turns a broad array of local land use-regulations into federal constitutional questions.” The dissenting justices also maintained that, on the facts of this case, the District never actually demanded anything in exchange for a permit, and no regulatory taking took place because no property changed hands.

[14] Commentators encouraged localities to start denying permits without discussion[15] but predicted that only "strong judicial action" will effect entrenched players.