Fundamental Planning Knowledge Flashcards
1
Q
Flavel Shurtleff
A
Wrote “Carrying Out the City Plan”, the first major text book on City planning
2
Q
Walter Moody
A
Published “Wacker’s Manual of the Plan of Chicago, adopted as an eighth-grade textbook by the Chicago Board of Education. This is known as the formal instruction in city planning below college level.
3
Q
When was the American City Planning Institute of Planners (ACIP) founded? (first iteration of AICP)
A
1917
4
Q
Federick Law Olmstead
A
First ACIP president
5
Q
Which city passed the first land use zoning restriction on the location of noxious uses?
A
1867 - San Francisco
6
Q
Which City created the first local civic center plan in the US?
A
1903 - Cleveland
7
Q
Which was the first major city to apply City Beautiful principles using a plan adopted by Daniel Burnham?
A
1906 - San Francisco
8
Q
Which city created the first town planning board?
A
1907 - Hartford Connecticut
9
Q
Which city created the first metropolitan regional plan ?
A
1909 - Chicago created by Daniel Burnham
10
Q
Which city was the first to use land use zoning to guide development?
A
1909 - LA
11
Q
Which city hired the first full - time employee for a city planning commission? Which hoe did they hire?
A
1914 - Newark, NJ, hoe - Harland Bartholomew
12
Q
Which city adopted the first comprehensive zoning code (written by Edward Bassett)?
A
1916- NYC
13
Q
Which city formed the regional planning commission?
A
LA 1922
14
Q
Which city was the first to adopt a comprehensive plan? (produced by alfred bettman and ladiaslas segoe)
A
Cincinnati - 1925, focused on infrastructure projects and called for planning to be controlled by a citizen city planning commission.
15
Q
When was the first US National Planning Board created?
A
1933 - later named the national resource planning board then abolished in 1943
16
Q
When and where was the first federally supported public housing constructed?
A
1934 - Cleveland (but the first one occupied was Atlanta)
17
Q
Which and when was the first state to introduce statewide zoning?
A
1961 - Hawaii, but that was later amended in 1978
18
Q
Jacob Riis
A
Published a book called “How the Other Half Lives” in 1890 - resulted in housing reform in NYC
19
Q
Ebenezer Howard
A
Wrote “Tomorrow: Peaceful Path to Real Reform” initiated the Garden City Movement - 1912
20
Q
Cities in Evolution
A
Written by Patrick Geddess (1915) the book centered on regional planning and Geddes is known as the “father of regional planning”
21
Q
Nelson Lewis
A
Wrote “Planning of the Modern City” by Nelson Lewis in 1916
22
Q
Ladislas Sagoe
A
wrote “Local Planning Administration” in 1941. First book in the Green Book series.
23
Q
Stuart Chapin
A
Wrote Urban Land Use Planning 1957) common textbook on land use planning
24
Q
Kevin Lynch
A
Wrote “Image of the City” (1960). Book define concepts within the city, such as edges and nodes.
25
Jane Jacobs
Wrote Death and LIfe of Great American Cities (1961) . Took a critical look at planners and planning with a special focus on the mistakes of urban renewal.
26
Rachel Carlson
Wrote "Silent Spring" (1962). Focused on the negative effects of pesticide on the environment.
27
TJ Kent
wrote "The Urban General" (1964)
28
Alfred Reins
Wrote "With Heritage So Rich" (1966)
29
William Whyte
Wrote "The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces" (1980). Book promotes the use of environmental psychology and sociology in urban design.
30
Charles Abrams
created the New York Housing Authority. In 1965 he published The City is the Frontier, a book that was highly critical of U.S. federal policies surrounding slum clearance, urban renewal, and public housing.
31
Thomas Adams
was an important planner during the Garden City movement. He was the secretary of the Garden City Association and became the first manager of Letchworth, U.K. He developed a number of garden suburbs in England and later went on to teach planning at MIT and Harvard.
32
Saul Alinsky
as an advocate of community organizing. Alinsky organized Chicago's poor in the late 1930s and 1940s. In 1946, he published Reveille for Radicals, which encouraged those who were poor to become involved in American democracy. Later he published Rules for Radicals, which provided 13 rules for community organizing.
33
Sherry Arnstein
"A Ladder of Citizen Participation” for the Journal of the American Planning Association in 1969. This article describes the levels of involvement by citizens depending on the form of participation utilized.
34
Daniel Burnham
was a Chicago architect and prominent proponent of the City Beautiful movement. He was the lead force behind the 1893 Columbian Exposition and later the 1909 Plan of Chicago. His most famous quote is "Make no little plans. They have no fire to stir men's blood."
35
John Nolen
designed Mariemont, Ohio and was a leading planner and landscape architect. He made substantial contributions including creating the first comprehensive plan in Florida, contributing to the park system in Madison, Wisconsin and designing Venice, Florida.
36
Frederick Law Olmsted, Sr.
is considered the father of landscape architecture. He is responsible for many of the nation's most important parks including Central and Prospect Parks in New York City, Niagra Reservation, and university campus landscapes. He was part of the design team for Riverside, IL, laid out in 1868.
37
Clarence Perry
developed the neighborhood unit concept which was implemented in Radburn, New Jersey. He was a key contributor to the 1929 Regional Survey of New York and its Environs.
38
Paolo Soleri
was an architect responsible for designing Arcosanti, an experimental utopian city in Arizona focused on minimizing the impact of development on the natural environment.
39
Clarence Stein
designed Sunnyside Gardens in Queens, NY, Radburn, NJ, and many other garden suburbs in the U.S. He was a major proponent of the garden city movement. He wrote New Town for America in 1951.
40
Rexford Tugwell
served as the head of the Resettlement Administration during the New Deal. He worked on the greenbelt cities program, which sought construction of new, self-sufficient cities. Tugwell was closely involved in the development of Arthurdale, West Virginia, a Resettlement Administration community. He later served on the New York City Planning Commission and served as governor of Puerto Rico.
41
Sir Raymond Unwin
was an English town planner and designer of Letchworth. He later lectured at the University of Birmingham in England and Columbia University. He wrote Town Planning in Practice, published in 1909.
42
Catherine Bauer Wurster
was a founder of American housing policy. She worked to reform policy that was related to housing and city planning. She served as executive secretary of the Regional Planning Association of America. She wrote Modern Housing and was influential in the passage of the Housing Act of 1937.
43
City Beautiful Movement:
During the late 1800s and early 1900s, U.S. cities were becoming places that had severe poverty, crime, and blight. At the time, there was a movement to address these issues through the expression of moral and civic virtues. Daniel Burnham was a leader in promoting this movement. City Beautiful leaders believed that creating a beautiful city would inspire residents to lead virtuous lives.
44
McMillan Plan (1901)
Example of a City Beautiful movement that sought to resurrect L'Enfant's 1791 plan for Washington and rstore the city to civic "greatness"
45
Garden City Movement
In 1898, Ebenezer Howard wrote To-morrow: A Peaceful Path to Real Reform. This book was later reissued in 1902 as Garden Cities of To-morrow. It explained the principles behind Garden City. A Garden City is self-contained, with a population of 32,000 and a land area of 6,000 acres. A Garden City would house 30,000 people on 1,000 acres, with remaining land and population in farming areas. Garden City was intended to bring about economic and social reform. Land ownership would be held by a corporation.
46
The City Efficient
was a reaction against the City Beautiful movement, which was seen as overly focused on beauty and not sufficiently concerned with matters of function and efficiency. The City Beautiful movement was openly denounced at the first planning conference in 1909.
47
Resettlement Administration in 1935
President Roosevelt established during the great depression. This agency was responsible for the Greenbelt Towns Program (or Green Towns Program). The Green Towns program developed three cities based on Howard's ideas: Greendale, Wisconsin; Greenhills, Ohio; and Greenbelt, Maryland.
48
Land Ordinance of 1785
provided for the rectangular land survey of the Old Northwest. The survey was completed following the end of the Revolutionary War and provided a systematic way to divide and distribute land to the public.
49
Homestead Act (1862)
provided 160 acres of land to settlers for a fee of $18 and a guarantee of five years of residence. The result was the settlement of 270 million acres or 10% of the land area of the United States
50
General Land Law Revision Act (1891)
provided the President of the United States with the power to create forest preserves by proclamation.
51
Forest Management Act (1897)
allowed the Secretary of the Interior to manage forest preserves.
52
U.S. Reclamation Act (1902)
It allowed the funds raised from the sale of public land in arid states to be used to construct water storage and irrigation systems.
53
Antiquities Act (1906)
the first law to provide federal protection for archaeological sites. The Act allowed for the designation of National Monuments.
54
Resettlement Administration (1935)
as formed to carry out experiments in population resettlement and land reform. The result was the development of Greenbelt towns.
55
Servicemen's Readjustment Act (1944)
GI Bill, guaranteed home loans to veterans. The result was the rapid development of suburbs.
56
The Chicago Plan of 1909
developed by Daniel Burnham, first regional plan in the US. Focused on incorporating ideas from the City Beautiful Movement, esp waterfront development, park, and civic center spaces. Criticized for failing to address issues like housing, poverty, and transportation efficiency.
57
Major changes as a result of the Housing Act of 1954
Following World War II, the rapid development of suburban areas led to increase in comprehensive planning. The U.S. housing Act of 1954 was the largest impetus for comprehensive planning. The law required cities to development comprehensive plan and provide funding for planning on section 701
58
What are the three major constitutional principles associated with planning?
(1) First amendment - freedom of speech, religion, and association
(2) Fifth amendment - Just compensation for taking
(3) Fourteenth amendment - due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection
59
Welch V. Swasey (1909)
The Court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height. An act in 1905 in Massachusetts enabled the limitation of building heights and the court held that height discrimination is based on reasonable grounds, is a proper exercise of the police power of the state, and does not violate the equal protection and due process clauses of the 14th Amendment.
60
Eubank v. City of Richmond
The state had a statute authorizing cities and towns, among other things, 'to make regulations concerning the building of houses in the city or town, and in their discretion, . . . in particular districts or along particular streets, to prescribe and establish building lines, or to require property owners in certain localities or districts to leave a certain percentage of lots free from buildings and to regulate the height of buildings.' The court held that the ordinance was a valid use of police power.
61
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court (1915)
The Court first approved the regulation of the location of land uses. The court found that a zoning ordinance in Los Angeles that prohibited the production of bricks in a specific location did not violate the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
62
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court (1926)
The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. The key question before the court was whether the Village of Euclid's zoning ordinance violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the 14th Amendment of the constitution. The key outcome of the court was that it upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.
63
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court (1928)
Two years after Euclid v. Ambler, the Court used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., to promote the health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public). The Court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th Amendment.
64
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)
The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access, and firehouses. A proposal would only be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the facilities themselves.
65
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma;
The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
66
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)
The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
67
Massachusetts v. EPA (2006)
The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.
68
Rapanos v. United States (2006)
The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
69
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection
The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
70
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015)
In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of the Fair Housing Act. Inclusive Communities Project claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority neighborhoods and denying credits to developments within Caucasian neighborhoods. The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the Fair Housing Act. The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the Fair Housing Act.
71
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976)
The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
72
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)
The Court found that commercial and noncommercial speech cannot be treated differently. The court overruled an ordinance that banned all off-premises signs because it effectively banned noncommercial signs.
73
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court (1984)
The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance did not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. The Court found that aesthetics does advance a legitimate state interest.
74
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)
The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. The Court found that placing restrictions on the time, place, and manner of adult entertainment is acceptable. The ordinance was treating the secondary effects (such as traffic and crime), not the content. The Court found that the city does not have to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.
75
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
The new act declares that no government may implement land use regulation in a manner that imposes a substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution unless the government demonstrates that imposition of burden both is in furtherance of compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.
76
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)
The pastor of a church rented space in an elementary school and placed signs in the area announcing the time and location of the church services. Gilbert’s sign ordinance restricts the size, number, duration, and location of certain types of signs, including temporary signs. Gilbert advised the church that it had violated the sign code through the placement of the temporary signs. The US Supreme Court found that the city cannot impose a more stringent restriction on signs directing the public to a meeting than on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content-neutral.
77
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)
The Court ruled that the acquisition of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation.
78
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)
The Court found that if a regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. This was the first takings ruling and defined a taking under the 5th Amendment.
79
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954
The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
80
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)
In this case, the city had put in place a regulation that required the placement of a public park on private property, leaving no income producing use of the property. The Court invalidated the regulation, but it was not ruled as a taking that should receive compensation.
81
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)
The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking. The Court found that a taking is based on the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment-backed expectations, and the character of the government action. The Court weighed the economic impact of the regulation on investment-backed expectations and the character of the regulation to determine whether the regulation deprives one of property rights.
82
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)
The appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land for residential development. The zoning ordinance placed the appellants' property in a zone with density restrictions (one single-family residence per acre). The appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.
83
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1982)
The cable television company installed cables on a building to serve the tenants of the building and to serve other buildings. The property owner brought a class action suit claiming that allowing the cable company to occupy the land was a taking. The Court found that the government authorized a permanent physical occupation of private property that therefore constituted a taking requiring just compensation.
84
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987
The Court found that if a property is unusable for a period of time, then not only can the ordinance be set aside, but the property owner can subject the government to pay for damages. The Court found that the County could either purchase the property out-right or revoke the ordinance and pay the church for its losses during the time of the trial.
85
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Pennsylvania's Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal beneath four protected structures be kept in place to provide surface support. The Coal Association alleged that this constituted a taking. The Court found that the enactment of regulations did not constitute a taking and was justified by the public interests protected by the Act.
86
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Public utilities challenged a federal statute that authorized the Federal Communications Commission to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. The Court found that a taking had not occurred.
87
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
The question before the Court was whether the California Coastal Commission’s requirement that owners of beachfront property seeking a building permit need to maintain beachfront access constitutes a property taking in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court agreed that a legitimate interest is served by maintaining a "continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast," but that California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.
88
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)
In 1986, Lucas bought two residential lots on the Isle of Palms, a South Carolina barrier island. He intended to build single-family homes as on the adjacent lots. In 1988, the state legislature enacted a law which barred Lucas from erecting permanent habitable structures on his land. The law aimed to protect erosion and destruction of barrier islands. Lucas sued and won a large monetary judgment. The state appealed.
The Court found that there is a taking if there is a total reduction in value (no viable value left) after the regulation is in place (except where derived from the state's law of property and nuisance). The Court found that Lucas purchased the land prior to the development regulations being put in place, and so the regulation constituted a taking.
89
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)
The Court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of a floodplain (to create a greenway and bicycle path) by a commercial business that wanted to expand. The Court found that there was not enough of a connection between the exaction requirement and the development. Conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified, but there has to be a clear relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The "rough proportionality" test was created from this case: "an exaction is legitimate only if the public benefit from the exaction is roughly proportional to the burden imposed on the public by allowing the proposed land use."
90
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)
Bernadine Suitum owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency determined that the lot was ineligible for development under agency regulations. However, the agency determined that Suitum was entitled to "Transferable Development Rights" (TDRs) that she could sell to other landowners with the agency's approval. Rather than sell her TDRs, Suitum filed suit claiming that the agency's determination amounted to a regulatory taking of her property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The District Court held that Suitum's claim was unjusticible because she had not attempted to sell her TDRs. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reasoning that an agency action on a TDR transfer application would be the requisite "final decision" regarding Suitum's lot in order for her claim to be ripe for adjudication.
The Court, in this case, was answering the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation. The petitioner owned an undeveloped lot near Lake Tahoe, and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency found that the lot could not be developed under the agencies' regulations, but that Suitum could sell the development rights under the Transfer of Development Rights program. The Court ruled that Suitum did not have to attempt to sell developmental rights before filing a regulatory taking suit.
91
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court (1999)
The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city's repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on oceanfront property. The development was in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.
92
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)
The question before the Court was whether a property owner who acquired title to a property after regulations were in place could still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment. The property owner claimed inverse condemnation against the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council because the landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. The Supreme Court found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims.
93
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002)
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking. The Court found that the moratoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.
94
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent (see above) declaring that regulation of property does effect a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The Court found that Takings clause challenges had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.
95
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.
96
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)
The Supreme Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain. The Court reasoned that it is not in a position to determine the amount or character of land needed for a particular public project.
97
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)
The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state for beach reclamation did not constitute a taking of property without just compensation (in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments).
98
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012)
Mr. Koontz requested a permit from the St. John's River Water Management to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. St. John's agreed to issue the development permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work and St. John's denied the application. The key question facing the Court was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use. The Supreme Court found in favor of Koontz, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.
99
Koontz v. St. John's River Water Management (2012)
Mr. Koontz requested a permit from the St. John's River Water Management to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. St. John's agreed to issue the development permit on the condition that Koontz deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work and St. John's denied the application. The key question facing the Court was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until a landowner agrees to dedicate land for public use. The Supreme Court found in favor of Koontz, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.
100
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)
The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.
101
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)
The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single-family. The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The Court thus extended the concept of zoning under the police power to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles.
102
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)
The court reviewed a zoning case that denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC), a nonprofit developer, contracted to purchase a tract within Arlington Heights in order to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. The contract was contingent upon securing rezoning as well as federal housing assistance. MHDC applied to the Village for the necessary rezoning from a single-family to a multiple-family (R-5) classification. The Village denied the rezoning request and MHDC and individual minority respondents filed suit for injunctive and declaratory relief, alleging that the denial was racially discriminatory and violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fair Housing Act. The District Court held that the Village's rezoning denial was motivated not by racial discrimination but by a desire to protect property values and maintain the Village's zoning plan. Though approving those conclusions, the Court of Appeals reversed, finding that the "ultimate effect" of the rezoning denial was racially discriminatory and observing that the denial would disproportionately affect blacks, particularly in view of the fact that the general suburban area, though economically expanding, continued to be marked by residential segregation. The US Supreme Court found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Village acted in a racially discriminatory manner and overturned the findings of the previous two courts. They reprimanded to the lower court for further consideration
103
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)
The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low- to moderate-income housing. The Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels.
104
City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court (1997)
This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act was an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the end, the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium.
105
Concentric Circle Theory
Developed by Ernest Burgess in 1925. He believed that cities grow in a series of outward sings and land use is based on distance from downtown. There were five rings in his theory 1) the central business district 2)industrial zone 3) the zone of transition which has a mix of industrial and low-income housing 4) the zone of middle class housing 5)
