Bldg. Indus. Ass'n-Bay Area v. City of Oakland, 289 F. Supp. 3d 1056

Oakland enacted a 2017 ordinance requiring certain multifamily and commercial developers to either spend a percentage of building development costs on on-site or nearby public art (0.5% for most multifamily >20 units; 1% for certain commercial projects) or pay an equivalent in-lieu fee to a city public-art fund.
The requirement applies broadly to qualifying projects but contains exemptions and administrative appeal/feasibility mechanisms (e.g., affordable housing may be exempt if compliance makes a project infeasible).
Building Industry Association–Bay Area (the Association) brought a facial challenge to the ordinance on Fifth Amendment takings and First Amendment compelled-speech grounds.
The Association argued the ordinance is an unlawful exaction under the Nollan/Dolan/Koontz line of cases; Oakland contended the ordinance is a generally applicable regulation subject to the Penn Central regulatory-takings framework.
On the First Amendment claim, the Association argued compelled purchase/display of art is compelled speech; Oakland argued the requirement is minimal, optional (in-lieu fee exists), and does not force a specific message.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the ordinance is an unlawful exaction (Takings Clause)	Ordinance functions as an exaction requiring developers to give value to the city; Nollan/Dolan/Koontz apply and ordinance is facially invalid	Ordinance is a generally applicable regulation, not an individualized exaction; apply Penn Central regulatory-takings test	Court: Exactions doctrine applies to discretionary, individual land-use decisions; facial challenge to a broad ordinance must be evaluated under Penn Central; fee (≤1% of development cost) cannot support a facial regulatory-takings claim → dismissal
Whether the ordinance compels speech (First Amendment)	Requiring purchase/display of art compels expression by developers, implicating heightened scrutiny	Ordinance implicates expression but compulsion is minimal: developers choose art or pay in-lieu fee; no required viewpoint or attribution; legitimate government interests justify the rule	Court: Ordinance implicates First Amendment but does not trigger strict scrutiny; reviewed under a deferential standard (reasonable relation to legitimate government purpose) and upheld

Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (exactions doctrine: nexus requirement)
Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (exactions doctrine: rough proportionality requirement)
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 570 U.S. 595 (exactions doctrine applies to monetary demands but limited to individualized permit decisions)
Penn Central Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (regulatory takings multi-factor test)
Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470 (facial regulatory takings claim requires substantial loss of value)
Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U.S. 626 (permissible compelled disclosures and relaxed scrutiny for minimal burdens on speech)