Law - FPK Flashcards
1st Amendment
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association. Within the framework of the First Amendment, freedom of speech applies to adult uses and signs. Freedom of religion applies to religious facilities. Freedom of association applies to group homes.
5th Amendment
Just compensation for takings. The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation for takings, so this amendment applies in cases of takings and eminent domain.
14th Amendment
Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection. Defines different types of due process. Due process can be applied to takings, eminent domain, and exactions (a condition for development imposed on a parcel of land). Substantive due process is about the validity of the rule itself, which in planning might include issues of aesthetics. Procedural due process is about whether the rules were applied fairly, which in planning might include how an ordinance was applied. Equal protection is often applied to exclusionary zoning.
The taking of property without just compensation
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was based on
Nuisance laws. Under common law, persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land. Early zoning regulations focused on limiting nuisances.
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91
- Zoning Case.
- 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.
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1912.
- Zoning Case.
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, . . . 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.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1915.
- Zoning Case. Pre-Zoning Regulations.
- Due Process (prohibition on certain industrial uses upheld)
- 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.
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1926.
- Zoning Case.
- 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.
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1928.
- Zoning Case.
- 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.
In the Nectow case (1928), the plaintiff sued for a mandatory injunction for a permit to erect a building without regard to the zoning ordinance, which zoned the land residential. The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling, and found that the invasion of the plaintiff’s property right was “serious and highly injurious,” and that the zoning ordinance would not promote the health, safety, convenience or general welfare of the inhabitants of Cambridge.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals
- 1972.
- Growth Management.
- Due Process; Right to Travel (adequate public facilities program)
- 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.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
- 1975.
- Growth Management.
- Due Process
- (system establishing annual building permit cap upheld) The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court
- 1976.
- Growth Management.
- The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States
- 2013.
- Challenge to Federal Act.
- The Court found that the 1875 General Railroad Right-of-Way Act grants an easement for the railroad’s land. When the railroad company abandons the land, it should be settled as an easement and if the easement is abandoned, the easement disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
- 2006.
- Challenge to Federal Act.
- The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court
- 2006.
- Challenge to Federal Act.
- The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court
- 2006.
- Challenge to Federal Act.
- The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court
- 2015.
- Challenge to Federal Act. n
- Supreme Court was asked to evaluate whether disparate impact is the appropriate standard in which to evaluate the impact of the FHA.
- Inclusive Communities Project claimed that the Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs was disproportionately granting tax credits to developments in minority & denying credits to developments within Caucasian. The Court held that Disparate impact is the appropriate standard to be applied to the FHA
- The result is that policies that even inadvertently relegate minorities to poor areas violate the FHA.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1976.
- 1st Amendment Case.
- Sexually Oriented Businesses. First Amendment; Equal Protection(regulations requiring separation of adult establishments from certain other uses not unconstitutional)
- The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1981.
- 1st Amendment Case. Signs/Billboards.
- First Amendment (ordinance invalidated that placed tighter restrictions on signs bearing noncommercial messages than on commercial billboards)
- 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.
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1984.
- 1st Amendment Case. Signs and Billboards. First Amendment (ban on signs within public rights-of-way not violation of free speech)
- 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.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
- 1986.
- 1st Amendment Case. Sexually Oriented Businesses.
- First Amendment (adult uses adequately accommodated, regulations upheld as reasonable time, place, & manner restrictions)
- 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.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
- 2000.
- 1st Amendment Case.
- Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v. Flores
- Congress passed the RLUIPA. 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.
- This act has been challenged in several legal cases.
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona
- 2014.
- 1st Amendment Case.
- 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 church sued Gilbert claiming that the sign code violated the free speech clause in the First Amendment, as well as the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- 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.