Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Planning prep cards > Statutory Basis of Planning/Law > Flashcards

Statutory Basis of Planning/Law Flashcards

1
Q

First Amendment

A

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religion, and Freedom of Association. Think signage, adult uses, religious facilities. Freedom of association applies to group homes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Fifth Amendment

A

Just compensation for takings. Think eminent domain and the idea of “takings”.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Fourteenth Amendment

A

Due process, substantive due process, procedural due process, and equal protection. Think takings, eminent domain, etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Taking property without just compensation violates which two constitutional amendments?

A

The taking of property without just compensation is a violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Welch v. Swasey

A
  1. Court upheld a limitation on building height imposed on buildings in a Boston neighborhood.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Eubank v. City of Richmond

A
  1. Supreme court acknowledges that the establishement of building lines (setback lines) is a valid use of the police power.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Hadacheck v. Sebastian

A
  1. Supreme court first approved the regulation and location of land uses. A brickmaker was restricted from a certain location and sued.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co

A
  1. The Court found that as long as the community believed that there was a threat of a nuisance, the zoning ordinance should be upheld. Essentially modern zoning was affirmed to be a proper use of the police power.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Nectow v. City of Cambridge

A
  1. Court struck a zoning ordinance because it had no valid public purpose (e.g., promoting, health, safety, morals, public welfare). Limitation on zoning.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Golden v. Planning Board of the Town of Ramapo

A
  1. Court upheld a growth management system that awarded points to development projects based on availability of public resources (or developer willingness to install) and approved proposals once they get a certain number of points.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Construction Industry of Sonoma County v. City of Petaluma

A
  1. Court upheld quotas on the number of building permits issued.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Associated Home Builders of Greater East Bay v. City of Livermore

A
  1. Court upheld City’s decision to impose a temporary moratorium on building permits. They were restricted until public facilities met state standards.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Brandt Revocable Trust v United States

A
  1. Court ruled that an abandoned easement will disappear and ownership would be reverted to the previous owner.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Massachusetts v. EPA, Inc

A
  1. The Court held that the EPA must provide a reasonable justification for why it would not regulate greenhouse gases.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Rapanos v. United States

A
  1. Supreme court. The Court found that the Army Corp of Engineers must determine whether there is a significant nexus between a wetland and a navigable waterway.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

SD Warren v. Maine Board of Environmental Protection

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court found that hydroelectric dams are subject to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project Inc.

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Young v. American Mini Theaters, Inc.

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court upheld a zoning scheme that decentralized sexually oriented businesses in Detroit.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Members of City Council v. Taxpayers for Vincent

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles. Regulation was appropriate for aesthetic reasons, which can advance state interest.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc.

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court upheld a zoning ordinance that limited sexually oriented businesses to a single zoning district. OK to put limitations on location of adult use but not to prohibit entirely.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000

A

(RLUIPA). 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.

23
Q

Reed et al. v Town of Gilbert Arizona

A
  1. Gilbert AZ restricting
    signage for a church meeting due to an ordinance on signage. 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.
24
Q

United States v. Gettysburg Electric Railway Company

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
25
Q

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
26
Q

Berman v. Parker

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court held that aesthetics is a valid public purpose. The Court also found that urban renewal is a valid public purpose.
27
Q

Fred French Investing Co. v. City of New York

A
  1. 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.
28
Q

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. The City of New York

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.
29
Q

Agins v. City of Tiburon

A
  1. Supreme Court. Guy bought low density zoned property and wanted to build at a higher density. The Court upheld a city’s right to zone property at low-density and determined that the zoning was not a taking.
30
Q

Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corporation

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
31
Q

First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v. County of Los Angeles

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
32
Q

Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis

A
  1. Supreme Court. Pennsylvania’s Bituminous Mine Subsidence and Land Conservation Act prohibits coal mining that causes subsidence damage to pre-existing public buildings, dwellings, and cemeteries. Coal company objected. Court said it was not a taking and justified the public interest.
33
Q

FCC v. Florida Power Corporation

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
34
Q

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission

A
  1. Supreme Court. Guy builds coastal house. Commission says it blocks the view and they need to include an easement and maintain a beach trail. Court says trail does not really connect to the sight issue. California must provide just compensation to beachfront property owners for the public use of their land.
35
Q

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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).
36
Q

Dolan v. Tigard

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
37
Q

Suitum v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

A
  1. Supreme Court.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.
38
Q

City of Monterey v. Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd

A
  1. Supreme Court. Court awarded $$$ to developer after permit repeatedly rejected. Development met codes. Denial would strip all economic value from property.
39
Q

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island

A
  1. Supreme Court. Just because a regulation was in place before a property was purchased, does not mean it can’t be considered a taking.
40
Q

Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. et al. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency et al.

A
  1. Supreme Court. Development moratorium does not constitute a taking.
41
Q

Lingle v. Chevron USA, Inc.

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent (see above) 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.
42
Q

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams

A
  1. Supreme Court. 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.
43
Q

Kelo v. City of New London

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that economic development, even if it involves taking land for private development, is a valid use of eminent domain.
44
Q

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection

A
  1. 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).
45
Q

Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management

A
  1. Government liable for a taking if they withold permit until a dedication for public land is made. Was a taking because no regulation required the dedication.
46
Q

Munn v. Illinois

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court found that a state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking and violation of due process.
47
Q

Mugler v. Kansas;

A
  1. Supreme Court. The Court found that a state law prohibiting liquor sales did not constitute a taking and violation of due process.
48
Q

Village of Belle Terre v. Boaraas

A
  1. Supreme Court. More than 2 unrelated people living together was at issue. 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

A
  1. Supreme Court. Rezone to multi-family for racially integrated and low income housing was denied. Flip flopped through the courts but SC ultimately found insufficient evidence of racial motivation in the denial.
50
Q

Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel

A
  1. 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

A
  1. Supreme Court. This case challenged the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Expansion of church could not be prohibited.
52
Q

Dillon’s Rule

A

Applies in states where the rights of cities are only those that have been specifically authorized by the state.

53
Q

Home Rule

A

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

Planning prep cards (15 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions