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Rescinded/reversed Measure 37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
