Urb Planning Final Flashcards
5th Amendment/Constitutionality of Planning
“Nor shall private property be taken for public use w/o just compensation”
Known as “TAKINGS CLAUSE”
14th Amendment
“No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/o due process of law”
Prevents irrational actions including discriminatory actions perpetrated by a regulating entity
Encourages judicial action if agreement is not reached between parties outside of court
Ramapo 1964 Land Use Ordinance (Oregon)
Said that a property owner needed to meet 15/23 requirements to get a building permit
1973 Held up in court
1973 State Growth Management Plan (Oregon)
Required each urban area identify urban growth boundaries
2004 Measure 37 Referendum (Oregon)
Proposed that property rights should allow rule to be waived or property owners to be justly compensated
Passed by a 61% vote
2007 Measure 49 Referendum (Oregon)
Rescinded/reversed Measure 37
Passed by a 61% (irony, the times they are a changin’)
Hadacheck v. Sebastian-1915
Ruled that land use regulations were valid in a nuisance case. Hadacheck was ordered to move certain operations that created lots of noise in his brick factory to an alternate site. He said hell no. Court said, well, actually, you gotta move.
Berman v. Parker(DC) (1954)
Berman was a furniture store owner in an area being “revitalized” by a city of Washington DC. They enacted EMINENT DOMAIN but he refused to move.
The court ruled that the city could use it for achieving economic redevelopment objectives!
Penn Central Transportation v. NYC (1978)
Company wanted to build a skyscraper on top of its property (Grand Central Station), however the city had designated the site as “historical.” and thus development on it was prohibited. Company sued, but Court ruled in favor of city, and said that the historical designation was valid
This is not a takings because the company had not yet invested in new development
Takings must be unjust prevention of profit from development that is INVESTMENT-BACKED. Or interfering with investments previously made.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)
Court prevented CCC from requiring Nollan to provide public beach access as a condition to enlarging his house
Court said there was no “Essential Nexus” for the CCC’s mandate
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
SCCC tried to block further development, prevented Mr. Lucas from developing on two beachfront lots. The Court ruled the state’s action a “TAKINGS” and ordered SCCC to provide Mr. Lucas w $1.6 Million in damages
Also they passed the law right after he bought the property
Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)
Municipality tried to tell a property owner that they had to dedicate land to environmental purposes (i.e, rec trail) in return for a variance that would permit enlargement of store parking lot. Court said NO FUCKING WAY!!
Kelo v. City of New London (2005) DEV
was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another private owner to further economic development. In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified private development plans as a permissible “public use” under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.
Polazzolo v. Rhode Island, (2001)
SC made a ruling on whether or not it mattered if the law predated the purchase of the property. Said the purchaser of a property could still make a valid claim even if the law predated their purchase on the property
However they did not make a ruling on a Takings, they delegated that ruling to a lower court, they focused on issue described above in case description
They ruled this way because RBG thought that it was discriminatory to rule otherwise.
The Nexus Test
The relationship between a problem and solution must be shown to uphold the validity of the condition for approval.
Housing Act of 1949
created Urban Renewal Program
Housing Act of 1954
Required the Establishment of a “Workable Plan”
Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG) 1974 was established to
replace the alphabet soup of categorical grants. Funds must be used primarily to benefit low and moderate income persons (who make less than 80% of area’s median household income)
Fundable Areas of CDBG Program
Housing abandonment and rehab
Commercial Revitalization
Improving Neighborhood Services
1977: Urban Development Action Grant Program…Objectives, Focus?
Objective: Enhance the economic attractiveness of underutilized/abandoned commercial area
Focus: Land Assembly, Redesign, reconfiguration of infrastructure
Introduced public/private partnerships
Program was terminated under the Reagan administration.
1980s: Emergence of Economic Development Administration (EDA)– Primary Criteria?
Unemployment rates were the primary criteria for funding
Poverty rates were secondary criteria
Designed to leverage federal money w private sector initiatives to create jobs
Program continues to exist today.
Daniel Burnham
City Beautiful
Ebenezer Howard
Garden City
Frederick Law Olmstead
Central Park, Landscape Architecture
Euclid v. Amber
1926 Upheld constitutionality of zoning
First comprehensive zoning law (where and when)
1916 NYC
Origin of Zoning in US
San Francisco
1879 Dumbbell Plan
In NYC, new requirements required 1 outdoor window per room as well as 2 toilets per floor.
Dumbbell building shape accommodated this
First Public Works Project in US
Erie Canal 1817-1825
Railroad Flats Length?
25’ X 75’ buildings in 25’ X 100’ lots
Railroad Flats Height, #Units, #Windows, Conditions?
5-7 story walkups
4 units per floor w central stairwell
1-2 windows per floor
Water from outside line
Three Major Movements
Public Health Movement
Garden City Movement
City Beautiful Movement
first laws recognizing housing conditions
Tenement Law of 1867
Public Health Movement
1860s
Tenement Laws emerge
Land is set aside for Central Park
Zoning emerges as a substantial force
First U.S City to reach 1 Million Residents and When?
NYC, 1880
Tenement Law of 1901
Required Bathroom in each apartment
Regulations were retroactive!
Garden City Movement
Began w Ebenezer Howard in England in 1800s
25,000-30,000-person cities interconnected by trains
Focused on separation of land-uses
Anti-Urban
Which aspect of the Garden City Movement was adopted by the united states
Separation of land use became model for suburban zoning in the U.S. communities at the time
City Beautiful Movement
Municipal Art, civic improvement, landscape of public spaces,
When did the City Beautiful Movement start?
1893 @ Columbia Exposition in Chicago
Faults of City Beautiful Movement?
No citizen participation, neglected social issues, focus on physical attributes not functional attributes
Standard State Planning Enabling Act (Year)
1922
Standard City Planning Enabling Act (Year)
1928
Housing Act of 1934
Federal Housing Administration created
Housing Act of 1937
Foundation for public housing program to construct public housing units for occupancy by low income households
Planning is the _______ and Zoning is the ______
Vision…Regulation
What did the Housing Act of 1949 Really Lead to?
“Slum Clearance”
Provided federal support for clearance and redev of central cities.
Was more like Urban “removal” program
What did the Housing Act of 1949 “Guarantee” all Americans?
“a decent, safe, and sanitary housing unit.”
1950’s saw significant trends toward
Flight to suburbs enabled by mass numbers of auto-mobiles.
Family oriented communities
Strip Retail Centers
Industrial Parks
1956 Interstate Highway Act
provided a intranational transportation network
From 1950-2000, most US Cities ____ population
Lost
After 2000 most cities _____ population
Regain, albeit marginally
Interstate Highway Act had an impact on
Land Use and Development
Transportation is both a ______ and a _____ response to development
Driver and a response
1960s Planning saw an emphasis on
Social issues
Housing Act of 1965
Created Department of Housing and Urban Development
Late 60s-70s saw the emergence of
Environmental Legislation at the federal level
EPA is created in…(year)
1969
1970 (law)
Clean Air Act
1972 (law)
Clean Water Act