Law - FPK Flashcards
1
Q
1st Amendment
A
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.
2
Q
5th Amendment
A
Just compensation for takings. The Fifth Amendment requires just compensation for takings, so this amendment applies in cases of takings and eminent domain.
3
Q
14th Amendment
A
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.
4
Q
The taking of property without just compensation
A
violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
5
Q
Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was based on
A
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.
6
Q
Welch v. Swasey; 214 U.S. 91
A
- 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.
7
Q
Eubank v. City of Richmond; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
8
Q
Hadacheck v. Sebastian; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
9
Q
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
10
Q
Nectow v. City of Cambridge; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
11
Q
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals
A
- 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.
12
Q
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit
A
- 1975.
- Growth Management.
- Due Process
- (system establishing annual building permit cap upheld) The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
13
Q
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court
A
- 1976.
- Growth Management.
- The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
14
Q
Brandt Revocable Trust v United States
A
- 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.
15
Q
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 2006.
- Challenge to Federal Act.
- The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.
16
Q
Rapanos v. United States; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
17
Q
SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 2006.
- Challenge to Federal Act.
- The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
18
Q
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court
A
- 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.
19
Q
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
20
Q
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
21
Q
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
22
Q
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 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.
23
Q
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
A
- 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.
24
Q
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona
A
- 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.
25
Q
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1896.
- 5th Amendment.
- 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.
26
Q
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1922.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
27
Q
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1954.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- Public Use in Eminent Domain. Public Use Clause (urban redevelopment is public use for purposes of eminent domain)
- The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
28
Q
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals
A
- 1976.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
29
Q
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1978.
- primarily tested the Fifth Amendment. The New York City Landmarks Preservation Law of 1965 resulted in the designation of “landmarks” and “landmark sites.” Penn Central, which owned the Grand Central Terminal, was not permitted to build an office building above it. The Court held that the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future, it simply prevented Penn Central from building this specific 50 story addition. The Court found that the zoning restriction was substantially related to the general welfare of the city.
30
Q
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1980.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
- The appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation 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.
31
Q
Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1982.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
32
Q
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1987.
- 5th Amendment Case. Development Moratorium. Takings Clause (U.S. Constitution compels payment of temporary damages if “taking” found)
- 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.
33
Q
Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1987.
- 5th Amendment Case. Restrictions on Land Use. Takings Clause (no facial taking where coal mining operations prohibited from causing subsidence damage to surface structures; use of whole parcel considered)
- 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.
34
Q
FCC v. Florida Power Corporation; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
35
Q
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1987.
- 5th Amendment Case. Developer Exactions, Takings Clause (development condition must be sufficiently related to program purpose)
- 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.
36
Q
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1992.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- Restrictions on Land Use. Takings Clause (coastal setback prohibiting all practical use amounts to taking)
- 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.
37
Q
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1994.
- 5th Amendment Case. Developer Exactions, Takings Clause (applicability of rough proportionality test)
- 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.”
38
Q
Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1997.
- 5th Amendment Case. Development Moratorium. Takings Clause (moratorium not a taking per se)
- 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.
39
Q
City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1999.
- 5th Amendment Case. Developer Exactions, Takings Clause (applicability of rough proportionality test)
- 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.
40
Q
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 2001.
- 5th Amendment Case. Investment Backed Expectations. Takings Clause
- 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.
41
Q
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 2002.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
42
Q
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 2005.
- 5th Amendment Case. Restrictions on Land Use, Ta
- kings Clause (requirement that regulation “substantially advances a legitimate state interest” appropriate to analysis under Due Process Clause, not Takings Clause)
- The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent 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.
43
Q
City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 2005.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
44
Q
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court
A
- 2005.
- 5th Amendment Case. Public Use in Eminent Domain. Public Use Clause (economic development project in absence of blight can be a public use)
- 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.
45
Q
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection
A
- 2009.
- 5th Amendment Case. Restrictions on Land Use. Takings Clause
- 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).
46
Q
Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management
A
- 2012.
- 5th Amendment Case.
- 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.
47
Q
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1876.
- 14th Amendment Case.
- 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.
48
Q
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court
A
- 1974.
- 14th Amendment Case. Occupancy Restrictions. Due Process, Equal Protection, Freedom of Association (limit of no more than two unrelated person living as unit not unconstitutional)
- 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.
49
Q
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court
A
- 1977.
- 14th Amendment Case. Housing. Equal Protection (refusal to rezone to accommodate a low- and moderate income housing project not violation of equal protection despite adverse,disproportionate impact on African Americans)
- The court reviewed a zoning case that denied a rezoning of a property from single-family to multi-family. The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp 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.
50
Q
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court
A
- 1975.
- 14th Amendment Case. Housing. Equal Protection
- New Jersey Constitution violated if “developing” community fails to accommodate a “fair share” of prospective regional housing needs of low- and moderate-income persons
- 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.
51
Q
City of Boerne v. Flores; U.S. Supreme Court
A
- 1977.
- 14th Amendment Case.
- 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.
