Legal Principles and Statutory Basis of Planning

Question 1

Three Major Constitutional Principles Associated with Planning

Answer 1

First Amendment: Freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of association

Fifth Amendment: just compensation for takings

Fourteenth Amendment: Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection

Question 2

First Amendment (how is it applied)

Answer 2

within the framework of the First Amendment, freedom of speech applieds to adult uses and signs. Freedom of religion applies to religious facilities. Freedom of asscociation applies to group homes

Question 3

Fifth Amendment (how is it applied)

Answer 3

the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation for takings, so this amendment applies in cases of takings and eminent domain.

Question 4

Fourteenth Amendment (how is it applied)

Answer 4

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 validitiy 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.

Question 5

Zoning Cases

Answer 5

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. if this enjoyment is interrupted, for example through noise, pollution or odor, the affected party can claim a nuisance. Early zoning regulations focused on limiting nuisances.

Question 6

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Answer 6

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.

(Zoning Case)

Question 7

Eubank vs City of Richmond (1912)

Answer 7

The state had a statute authorizing cities and towns to establish building lines. The ordinance allowed the owners of two-thirds of the land abutting any street to request a building line. The court struck down the ordinance because they were against the delegation of this authority to private citizens. However, the court acknowledged that the establishment of building lines was a valid exercise of the police power.

(zoning case)

Question 8

Hadacheck vs Sebastian (1915)

Answer 8

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.

(Zoning case)

Question 9

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co (1926)

Answer 9

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 vilated 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 powers. Alfred Bettman filed an influential brief with the court.

(zoning cases)

Question 10

Nectow v City of Cambridge (1928)

Answer 10

two years after Euclid vs. 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.

(Zoning Case)

Question 11

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo: New York State Court of Appeals (1972)

Answer 11

The court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development proposals based on the vailabilty of public utilities, drainage facilities, parks, road access and firehouses. A proposal woul donly be approved upon reaching a certain point level. Developers could increase their point total by providing the facilities themselves.

(growth management case)

Question 12

Construction Industry of Sonomoa County v. City of Petaluma; US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit (1975)

Answer 12

The court upheld quotas on the annual number of building permits issued.

(growth management case)

Question 13

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States (2013)

Answer 13

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 easment disappears and the land reverts to the previous owner.

(challenge to federal acts)

Question 14

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc.; US Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 14

The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases

(challenge to federal acts)

Question 15

Rapanos v United States; US Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 15

The Court found that the Arym Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a naviagble waterway.

(challenge to federal acts)

Question 16

SD Warren v Maine Board of Environmental Protection; US Supreme Court (2006)

Answer 16

The court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act

(challenges to Federal Acts)

Question 17

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.; US Supreme Court (2015)

Answer 17

In this case, the SC 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 the 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.

(Challenge to federal Act)

Question 18

Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc.; US Supreme Court (1976)

Answer 18

The court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.

(First Amendment case)

Question 19

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego; US Supreme Court (1981)

Answer 19

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.

(First Amendment Case)

Question 20

Members of City Council v Taxpayers for Vincnent; US Supreme Court (1984)

Answer 20

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 aethetic 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 government interest. The Court found that aethetics does advance a legitimate state interest.

First amendment case

Question 21

City of Renton v Playtime Theatres, Inc; US Supreme Court (1986(

Answer 21

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 hvae to guarantee that there is land available, at a reasonable price, for this use. However, the city cannot entirely prohibit adult entertainment.

first amendment case

Question 22

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

Answer 22

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in City of Boerne v Flores, Congress passed the religious land use and institutionalized persons act. the new act declares that no government may implrement 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 futherance of compelling governemtn interest and is the least restrictive means of furthing that compelling governmental interest. This act has been challenged in several legal cases, for example in Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. the City of Chicago. In that case, the Cour found that changes that the City made to their zoning ordinance brought the ordiance into compliance with RLUIPA. This act was also challenged in Cutter v. Wilkinson, US Supreme Court (2005), where the Court ruled that the Act is a constitutional religious accomodation under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

First amendment case

Question 23

Reed et al. v. Town of Gilbert Arizona (2014)

Answer 23

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 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 thatn on signs conveying other messages. The Court found the sign ordinance was not content-neutral.

(first amendment case)

Question 24

United States v Gettysburg Electric Railway Company; US Supreme Court (1896)

Answer 24

The Court ruled that the acquisitiion of the national battlefield at Gettysburg served a valid public purpose. This was the first significant legal case dealing with historic preservation

(5th amendment case)

Question 25

Pennsylvania Coal Co v Mahon; US Supreme Court (1922)

Answer 25

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.

(5th amendment case)

Question 26

Berman v Parker; US Supreme Court (1954)

Answer 26

The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.

(5th amendment case)

Question 27

Fred French Investing Co. v City of New York; NY Court of Appeals (1976)

Answer 27

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.

(fifth amendment case)

Question 28

Penn Central Transportation Co v The City of New York; US Supreme Court (1978)

Answer 28

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 ont he 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 the property rights.

(fifth amendment Case)

Question 29

Agins v City of Tiburon; US Supreme court (1980)

Answer 29

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 delcaration 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.

(fifth amendment case)

Question 30

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation; US Supreme Court (1982)

Answer 30

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

(fifth amendment case)

Question 31

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of Los Angeles; US Supreme Court (1987)

Answer 31

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.

(fifth amendment case)

Question 32

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v DeBenedictis; USSC (1987)

Answer 32

Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that cuases subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings and cemetereis. The Act requires that 50 percent of the coal benath 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.

(fifth amendment case)

Question 33

FCC v Florida Power Corporation; USSC (1987)

Answer 33

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.

(fifth amendment case)

Question 34

Nollan v California Coastal Commission; USSC (1987)

Answer 34

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 violation of the Fifth and Fourteen 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.

fifth amendment case

Question 35

Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council; USSC (1992)

Answer 35

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.

(fifth amendment case)

Question 36

Dolan v Tigard; USSC (1994(

Answer 36

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”

fifth amendment case

Question 37

Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; USSC (1997)

Answer 37

The Court, in this case, was answering the question of whether an owner must attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatiory 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 suite.

fifth amendment case

Question 38

City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd; USSC (1999)

Answer 38

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 exonomically viable use of the land.

fifth amendment case

Question 39

Palazzolo v Rhode Island; USSC (2001)

Answer 39

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 Fifth Amendment. The property owner claimed inverse condemnation against hte Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management Council beacuse the landowner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club. The SC found that acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims.

fifth amendment

fifth amendment case

Question 40

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al; USSC (2002)

Answer 40

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in 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 moreatoria did not constitute a taking requiring compensation.

fifth amendment case

Question 41

Lingle v Chevron USA, inc.; USSC (2005)

Answer 41

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 severeity of the burden that the regulation imposed, not the effectiveness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

fifth amendment case

Question 42

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams; USSC (2005)

Answer 42

The Court ruled that a licensed radio opeator that was denied a conditional use permit for an antenna could not seek damages becaused it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996

fifth amendment case

Question 43

Kelo v City of New London (USSC, 2005)

Answer 43

The SC 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.

fifth amendment case

Question 44

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

Answer 44

The SC 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)

Question 45

Koontz v St. John’s River Water Management (2012)

Answer 45

Mr. Koontz requested a permit from the St Johns 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 proeprty into a conservation area and complete additional mitigation work. Koontz refused to undertake the mitigation work and St johns 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 SC found in favor of Koontz, noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work and that a taking had occurred.

fifth amendment

Question 46

Munn v Illinois; USSC 1876

Answer 46

The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a violation of due process. the Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court ofund that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.

14th amendment case

Question 47

Mugler v Kansas; USSC (1887(

Answer 47

The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process. “A prohibition simply upon the use of property for purposes that are declared, by valid legislation, to be injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community, cannot, in any sense, be deemed a taking”

14th amendment

Question 48

Village of Belle Terre v Boaraas; USSC (1974)

Answer 48

The Court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together 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

14th amendment

Question 49

Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation; USSC (1977)

Answer 49

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 SF to a MF (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 14th 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 be disproportionally affect blacks, particularly in view of the fact that the general suburban area, though economically expanding, continued to be marked by residential segregation. The USSC 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.

14th amendment

Question 50

City of Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurel; New Jersey Supreme Court (1975)

Answer 50

The Court found that Mount Laurel had exclusionary zoning that prohibited multi-family, mobile home, or low-to moderate income housing. Th Court required the town to open its doors to those of all income levels

14th amendment

Question 51

City of Boerne v Flores; USSC (1997)

Answer 51

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 14th 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.

Question 52

Police Powers

Answer 52

In the US, state police power comes from the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gives states the rights and powers “not delegated to the US”. States are granted the ability to regulate behabior and enforce laws that will sustaion the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the people. This right was upheld in Mugler v Kansas in which the SC found that a state had the right to regulate a brewery.

Question 53

Local Police Powers

Answer 53

State governments grant police power to local governments. The level of authority granted to local governments varies by state.

Question 54

Dillon’s Rule

Answer 54

Applies in states where the rights of cities are only those that have been specifically authorized by the state. Thirty-nine statse employ Dillon’s rule to all municipalities, while eight states employ the rule for certain types of municipalities.

Question 55

Home Rule States

Answer 55

Home rule states are those in which cities have the right to develop their own regulations, except where the state has specifically stated otherwise.