Planning Law Flashcards
Which case found that aesthetics is a valid government interest that may be regulated?
Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent: The court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance banning signs attached to utility poles within the public right of way, finding that the regulations of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.
What early zoning case did the Supreme Court rule that a brickyard in a residential zoning district is a nuisance nor was compensation required by the city?
Hadacheck v Sabastian 1915.
memory tip- hadabrick
What did the Supreme Court rule in Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon (1922) regarding regulatory takings?
Pennsylvania Coal’s property rights were taken by the Kohler Act due to not being able to mine the subsurface coal beneath the surface where Mahon had a covenant with Penna Coal. The Courts ruled that their subsurface sights were taken.
What was SCOTUS ruling for Penn Central Transportation v City of New York?
Ruled not a taking: historic preservation a public good, Penn Central could sell the air space rights (TDR), and the diminution did not apply to the whole property, only a discrete segment- the air space. There was still economic return based on the station and the ability to sell the air space rights.
memory aid- Preservation Crushes Taking - Penn Central Transportation
Loretto v Teleprompter CATV (1982)
Requiring the landlord to install able wiring on their building was a physical invasion. No matter how small this constitutes a taking and requires compensation. Damages set at $1 because the cable access actually increased the value of the property.
memory aid- Teleprompter CATV- Takings Cable
Village of Euclid v Ambler
Established concept of “public welfare”. SCOTUS upheld Euclid’s zoning regs as a legitimate exercise of the police power, asserted for public welfare.
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v Los Angeles County
1987- SCOTUS addresses temporary takings. Temporary moratorium related to rebuilding on the floodplain. SCOTUS says monetary damages are allowed for a temporary taking but does not decided if this was a taking. On remand, the lower court concluded, that keeping handicap children out of harms way outweighs church’s economic loss.
memory aid- first floodplain/first english
Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council
1992- Building permits denied on two coastal properties following a hurricane. Mr. Lucas says if I cannot build there, the state should pay me for the properties. SCOTUS agreed it was a per se/categorical taking, as it denied Lucas of all economic use of the property.
Tahoe Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
2000- Planning agency issued a temporary moratorium on a residential bldg permits for 32 months while drafting and adopting policies to protect the region. SCOTUS - a temporary moratorium is a not a per se taking. Temporary takings must be evaluated on a case by case basis under the frame work of Penn Central
