* Land Development & the Police Power (Ch. 3-4): Foundational - Police Power

Question 1

• Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon – S. Ct. (1922)

Answer 1

o F: coal company had right to remove coal from property
 Homeowners on property argued these rights were extinguished by statute forbidding such removal if it would cause destruction of a structure used as a habitation
o I: Does police power allow functional destruction of coal company’s previously existing right of property via legislative act?
o H: No; Act could not be sustained under police power, limited public interest in this one house, it’s a taking–>Just Compensation
 Eliminates the value of coal rights entirely – Holmes says this goes “too far” (exercise of legitimate police power can go too far)
 Even when gov’t purpose is reasonable, it can’t be allowed when it reduces the value of property to zero or very near zero

Question 2

• Village of Euclid Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co. – S. Ct. (1926) “Origins of Zoning”

Answer 2

o I: Can local government enact zoning ordinances under the police power, without compensation to land owners?
o H: Upholds the zoning laws – not unreasonable or arbitrary
 P provided no evidence that the laws effected the value of the property
 Purpose of zoning is positive – prevent nuisance before they arise
• Note- Nectow v. Cambridge – S. Ct. strikes down a zoning ordinance as applied (Euclid was a facial challenge)

Question 3

• Mugler v. Kansas (1887) “Brewery Outlawed”

Answer 3

o F: P owns brewery, which had been legal activity; state votes to amend KS constitution to ban alcohol, putting P out of business
o H: For D; this is not a taking (Affected by PA Coal, supra)