The agreement also defines the price to be paid by the buyer, which could only be an agreed fixed amount, but rather reflects the value of the post-closing development based on the capitalization of rents payable by the tenants. A development contract is a voluntary contract between a local court and a person who owns or controls the property within the jurisdiction, defining the obligations of both parties and setting the standards and conditions governing the development of the property. Although the agreements are voluntary, as soon as they have been concluded, they engage the parties and their successors. A development agreement gives the developer assurances that the development rules applicable to the project do not change during the duration of the agreement. The city or county may require conditions to mitigate the impact of the project, as well as clarification on the implementation of the project and the timing of public improvements. RCW 36.70B.170 describes the nature of development standards that are appropriate in a development agreement. What is interesting about the criticism of the actions is that it advocates unfair relations, which is normal. Traditional relationships between cities and developers should never be fair. Through its police powers, the city government has the exclusive power to grant permissions – the exclusive right to say what you can and cannot do with your property. The development agreement and the application of contract law imply that both parties are essentially equal and can find mutual understanding. However, those who have a development contract with a city know that this is hardly true. Of course, it is in the interest of each side to adopt a development agreement as soon as negotiations begin.
However, the city will always have the upper hand, as it still has a monopoly on licensing. While each party wants something, the city is still the party that can not say more easily than the developer, because without permission, the developer simply owns inconstructible land. More importantly, the development contract as a contract allows the City to require developers more than would normally be permitted by law. Adopted in 1995, the Local Project Review Act (Chapter 36.70B RCW) provides for specific authority and direction for development agreements. See RCW 36.70B.170 – .210 and WAC 365-196-845. In large-scale construction, contractors prefer to be able to sell housing on behalf of the landowner without interference from landowners. It is customary for the parties to negotiate a provision allowing the developer to sell long-standing weapons to third-party buyers at a price not below the price listed. To control the sale process, landowners generally require entry into the sale price and a right to approve or reject any proposed changes to the housing price list. The courts have upheld the use of excess in two pioneering cases: Nolan v. California Coastal Commission and Dolan/. The city of Tigard. Together, these judgments granted cities the right, costs and services of landowners without fair compensation, but with a restriction: there must be a ”rational connection” between the operation and the effects of development, and the operation must be proportional to the impact.
This is commonly referred to as the ”Nollan-Dolan test” and the Nexus study requirement. The urban plan is also criticized for being likely to end a city`s police powers for a period of time – the city cannot impose further changes to development.