LAW - v2 Flashcards
necessary relationship between a government’s requirement or exaction (like a development fee or condition) and the impact that the development or activity has on the public.
Central/Rational Nexus
The Supreme Court upheld a city ordinance prohibiting the posting of signs, including for political candidates, on utility poles, cross wires, and other structures on public property
Los Angeles vs. Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)
local governments can enforce generally applicable laws regulating camping on public property, even if those laws result in criminal penalties for individuals experiencing homelessness. The court determined that such enforcement does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment.
City of Grants Pass, Oregon v. Johnson (2024)
Court will examine how a LAW IS ADMINISTERED, applied or enforced (the process)
Official action may not be “arbitrary or capricious” or “confiscatory”
Must provide reasonable notice & opportunity to be heard by an impartial tribunal
Procedural Due Process
making sure the laws themselves are fair and just (ACTUAL CONTENT). It protects certain fundamental rights from being taken away by the government, no matter what procedures are used.
→ right to privacy and the freedom to marry
If a law unfairly restricts your personal freedoms, —– ensures it doesn’t violate your basic rights without a very good reason.
Substantive Due Process
— owned two adjacent lots in St. Croix County, Wisconsin.
A local ordinance required these lots to be treated as one parcel for development and sale purposes.
— wanted to sell one lot separately but were denied by the St. Croix County Board of Adjustment.
They sued, claiming the ordinance constituted a taking of their property.
Significance
Created a new test to determine the property unit (the denominator) for a regulatory takings analysis.
Murr v. Wisconsin (2017)
Applies bill of rights to the states!
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunites of citizens of he United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction equal protection clause
What is the 14th Amendment?
Powers not delegated to the federal govenrment by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectivley, or to the people
What is the 10th Amendment?
Congress shall make no law repsecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercisethere of, or abeidging freedom of speech (speech, assembly, religion, press)
Establishment clause(prohibits government action to establish state religion)
Free exercise clause (protects individuals’ right to practice religion of their choice)
What is the 1st Amendment?
Takings!
“nor shall any person… be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation”
What is the 5th Amendment?
Euclid v Ambler and Nectow v City of Cambridge
What cases dealt with zoning?
The community’s regional fair share of residences for all classes possibly wishing to live there, particularly for family’s of low and moderate income.
The term “Inclusionary” as defined in the land-mark Mt. Laurel Case means an obligation to provide what?
A taking can occur without formal eminent domain proceeding.
The Doctrine of Inverse Condemnation
What program evolved out of efforts to implement planning requirements of the Housing Act of 1949 and became a signature program expanding local planning across the United States?
Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 provided funding for local comprehensive planning, leading to communities across the country developing comprehensive plans.
Hadacheck v Sebastian was a zoning case testing whether a Los Angeles zoning ordinance violated the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
The Supreme Court found that the ordinance prohibiting the location of a brick manufacturing plant in a specific location in the city did not violate the 14th Amendment.
Which of the following cases was a test of the 14th Amendment Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses?
-Pennsylvania Coal Co. v Mahon
- Metromedia v City of San Diego
- Hadacheck v Sebastian
- Young v American Mini Theaters
Affirmative Obligations:
The court reinforced that municipalities have an affirmative obligation to provide for the housing needs of all income levels.
Enforcement:
The court emphasized the importance of municipalities actively working to create opportunities for affordable housing, not just passively accepting it.
Regional Needs:
The court clarified that municipalities must consider the regional need for affordable housing and contribute their fair share.
Souther Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurel (II) (1983) saw the court reaching which conclusion?
What is Fair Share?
plan or proposal, by which a municipality proposed to satisfy its obligation to create a realistic opportunity to MEET ITS FAIR SHARE of low and moderate income housing needs of its region.
Communities in growing areas must take their fair share of the region’s growth (New Jersey).
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.
Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)
**Established that discriminatory intent is required to invalidate zoning actions with racially disproportionate impacts. **
The Housing Corp. contracted with the Village of —- to build racially integrated low-and moderate-income housing.
When Housing Corp. applied for the necessary zoning permits, authorizing a switch from a single-to a multiple-family classification, Village’s planning commission denied the request. Acting on behalf of itself and several minority members, Housing Corp. challenged City’s denial as racially discriminatory.
Was Village’s denial of a zoning request, necessary for the creation of low-and moderate-income housing, racially discriminatory in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause? No; it was in compliance with zoning ordinance, and they had approved similar multi-family development elsewhere
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; US Supreme Court (1977)
Upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as single family; thus extended concept of zoning under police power to include community’s desire for certain types of lifestyles.
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.
Does an ordinance restricting land use to “one-family” dwellings violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
No. The Court held that the Village of Belle Terre’s ordinance restricting land use to one-family dwellings did not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the ordinance was not arbitrary, did not unreasonably apply to some individuals and not others, and was reasonably related to a rational state objective.
The Court also held that the ordinance did not violate the Due Process Clause because it did not deny anyone a fundamental right such as the rights to travel, association, and privacy.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas; US Supreme Court (1974)
Court validated state and local government actions that properly protect the public health, morals and safety.
***upheld the state’s use of “police power”
law prohibited the manufacture or sale of intoxicating liquor. —-was arrested for making and selling beer. This case was decided together with Kansas v. Ziebold.
Does the law violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
According to Harlan, prohibition does not infringe on Fourteenth Amendment rights. Though —has an abstract right to make liquor for his own use, such a right could be conditioned on its effect on others. Here the state legislature may exercise its police powers.
Mugler v. Kansas; US Supreme Court (1887)
State regulated grain warehouse and elevator rates by establishing maximum rates for their use.
Did the state-imposed rates deny the warehouse and elevator owners equal protection and due process under the 14th Amendment?
No on both counts. –> states may regulate the use of private property “when such regulation becomes necessary for the public good.” Waite resurrected an ancient legal doctrine to support his view: “When property is affected with a public interest, it ceases to be juris private only.”
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.
Munn v. Illinois; U.S. Supreme Court (1876)
– requested a permit from the management to develop additional land beyond what was allowed under the original permit. Water management agreed to issue the development permit on the condition that — deed the rest of his property into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. —- refused to undertake the mitigation work and — 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 —– noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.
**Significance **
Recognized that monetary exactions are subject to the per se takings test of Nollan and Dolan.
Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management (2012)
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).
The Florida Supreme Court answered that the statute was constitutional and additionally quashed the District Court of Appeal’s order by finding there is no perpetual right for beachfront property to touch the water.[4]
The plaintiff then petitioned the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Florida Supreme Court’s rejection of its theorized property right was itself a taking without just compensation, contrary to the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)
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.
Little Pink House; Owner of house in question was supported nationally –> they paid for her house to be moved and many states set regulations/laws saying that private property cannot be taken for economic development
Kelo v. City of New London; US Supreme Court (2005)
Severity of the burden! Takings clause
Does a regulation amount to an unconstitutional taking “if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests?”
No. Takings clause challenges to regulations had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed upon property rights, not the effectivness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest. The Court insisted that its ruling did not “disturb any of its prior holdings.”
The “substantially advances” formula put forth in Agins was inappropriate for determining whether a regulation amounted to a Fifth Amendment taking.
Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2005)
A three-year government moratorium on development is not a “taking” of private property that requires payment of compensation.
Justice Steven’s “Land use regulations are ubiquitous and most of them impact property values in some tangential way - often in completely unanticipated ways. Treating them all as “per se” takings would transform government regulation into a luxury few governments could afford.”
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.
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.; U.S. Supreme Court (2002)
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.
May a property owner who acquired title to the property after it was subject to wetlands regulations still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment?
Yes.
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.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island; U.S. Supreme Court (2001)
Required a reasonable relationship between conditions and impact.
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 owner by allowing the proposed land use.”
Dolan v. Tigard; U.S. Supreme Court (1994)
Restrictions on use must show nexus to nuisance.
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.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council; U.S. Supreme Court (1992)
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.
Because the Nollans’ request to rebuild their home did not further the government’s interest in overcoming a perceived psychological barrier to using the beach (central/rational nexus) the condition was a regulatory taking without compensation, in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Money damages could be appropriate for a temporary taking.
Did the ordinance violate the Fifth Amendment (as applied to the states through the Fourteenth) which prevents government from taking private property for public use without providing just compensation to the owner of the property?
Yes. The Court held that the ordinance violated the Constitution. Noting that the fate of the Church’s property had been in limbo for over six years (the suit which it had filed in 1979 had been denied a hearing as late as October of 1985), Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that, because the church was unable to use its property during this time, a “taking” of the property had occurred and compensation was required.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles; U.S. Supreme Court (1987)
Substantially Advances
Two prong test — A taking if: (i) does not substantially forward state interest or (II) denies owner an economically viable use of their land.
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.
*In Lingle vs. Chevron, the court struck down the “substantially advances” precedent set in Agins vs. City of Tiburon
Agins v. City of Tiburon; U.S. Supreme Court (1980)
Restrictions on use are legal as long as there is still some commercial value.
The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law(enacted after the loss of Penn Station) as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.
Did the restriction against Penn Central constitute a “taking” in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments?
No. The Court held that the restrictions imposed did not prevent Penn Central from ever constructing above the terminal in the future. New York’s objection was to the nature of the proposed construction and not to construction in general implemented to “enhance” the Terminal. Preventing the construction of a 50-plus story addition above the station was a reasonable restriction substantially related to the general welfare of the city.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York; U.S. Supreme Court (1978)
1st introduction of a TDR.
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.
- TDR receiving area had no real market and he sued and said it was a “taking”
- SCOTUS: while TDR are legitimate, this was considered a taking, because of lack of economic use and the TDRs were worthless
Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York; New York Court of Appeals (1976)
The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
In 1945, Congress passed the District of Columbia Redevelopment Act, creating the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, whose purpose would be to identify and redevelop blighted areas of Washington, D.C. Congress gave the new agency the power of eminent domain – the ability to seize private property with just compensation.
Berman and the other appellants owned a department store in one blighted area targeted by the commission and objected to the seizing of their property solely for beautification of the area. The landowners brought a civil suit in federal district court challenging the constitutionality of the Act. Their case was dismissed. They then appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Berman v. Parker; U.S. Supreme Court (1954)
Restrictions on use are not a taking provided they do not go too far.
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.
He reasoned the state exceeded its police powers by significantly diminishing the value of the land estates without having a strong public interest reason to do so.
Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon; U.S. Supreme Court (1922)
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.
United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; U.S. Supreme Court (1896)
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.
Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)
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.
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000
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.
City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1986)
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.
Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; U.S. Supreme Court (1981)
The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (1976)
The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.
Massachusetts argued that EPA was required to regulate these “greenhouse gases” by the Clean Air Act - which states that Congress must regulate “any air pollutant” that can “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; U.S. Supreme Court (2006)
Court allowed time phasing of future residential growth until performance conditions were met.
The Court upheld temporary moratoriums on building permits.
Key finding: Court can defer to the judgement of the municapality’s legislative body adn that the ordinance carries cosntitutionality
Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore; California Supreme Court (1976)
**GROWTH MANAGEMENT
**
The Court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.
Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma; U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)
Upheld the towns right to require PERFORMANCE STANDARDS to obtain a special building permit.
The courts decided that local governments can condition development approval on the provision of services.
The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the availability of SEWER, DRAINAGE, SCHOOLS/PARKS, ROADS, 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.
Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo; New York State Court of Appeals (1972)
Zoning ordinance was struck down because it had no valid public purpose.
Nectow owned property and entered into a contract to sell the land to a purchaser who wanted to use the land for commercial purposes.
Before the sale was completed the City of Cambridge passed a zoning ordinance that placed a 100 foot wide stop of Nectow’s property under residential zoning restrictions. Because of this restrictions, the sale failed.
The zoning ordinance had no valid public purpose (to promote health, safety, morals, or welfare of the public) and the court ruled that it was a violation of the due process clause of the 14th amendment.
Nectow v City of Cambridge; 1928
Upheld zoning classifications if classifications were reasonable.
The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld (must be connected to public welfare).
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.
The court upheld modern zoning as a proper use of police power.
Village is Euclid v Ambler Realty; US Supreme; 1926
The Court first allowed the regulation of the location of land uses.
This was a case on the constitutionality of zoning ordinances.
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.
Hadacheck v Sebastian; US Supreme Court, 1915
These are powers of a state government to make and enforce all laws necessary to preserve public health, safety and general welfare.
Explain police powers
The court established the right of municipalities to regulate building height.
Welch v Swasey; 214 US 91 (1909)
Nuisance laws: persons with real property are entitled to the quiet enjoyment of their land.
Noise, pollution, odor
Before comprehensive zoning, regulation of land use was based on what?
