AICP exam Planning and Legal cases

Hadacheck v. Sebastian 1915, US Supreme Court

Nuisance law

Zoning law can declare a use a nuisance by location even if it isn't a nuisance in other cases. It is legitimate use of the police power to prohibit certain land uses, even those in place before the ordinance is passed.

Brick maker can no longer make bricks after land zoned residential;Munn v. Illinois (1877) United States Supreme Court Case that ended up allowing states to regulate business within their borders, including railroads;Federalism A system in which power is divided between the national and state governments;1st Amendment Freedom of Religion, Speech, Press, Assembly, and Petition;5th Amendment TAKINGS

Criminal Proceedings; Due Process (no deprivation of property rights without DP); Eminent Domain (Just compensation); Double Jeopardy; Protection from Self incrimination;14th Amendment 1870 - if you have a grievance over the state's use of its power you may be able to get it reviewed by a federal court;Takings From the 5th Amendment

You get just compensation

1. Direct physical invasion or seizure of your property - eminent domain

• Categorical or per se)Action that is the equivalent of invasion or taking

2. Regulatory: The state is reducing your ability to maximize your use or value (inverse condemnation)

• exaction: imposed on your right to use your land requiring you to give something, such as money or land

3. Not compensatible - government action has an indirectly negative value on your property;10th Amendment Powers Reserved to the States (Police Power);Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon 1922 Regulatory Takings

Contract for Penn Coal to mine on the property - SCOTUS said that the state went too far and mining would be allowed

• was there reasonable investment-backed expectation

• was the governmental action legitimate

• what degree of loss did they suffer;Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York 1978 - NY developed TDR system - SCOTUS says the state did not go too far and the TDR was valid;Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp. 1982 - NY legislation requiring owners to allow private calbe companies to place boxes on roofs of private apt. buildings and run cable along exterior walls. Legislation offered nominal compensation

Holding: Permanent physical occupation require payments of compensation irrespectively of the goal government is trying to promote or how minor of an intrustion. Because permanent intrustion destroys 1) power to exclusively possess 2) power to control use, 3) power to dispose without loss in value .... they are PER SE TAKINGS that require compensation;First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. County of Los Angeles 1987 Temporary Takings are possible - moratorium on construction of buildings in a floodplain.;Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council 1992

SCOTUS - this is a taking because he lost all of his property value - he was not able to do anything with it;Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 2000 Temporary Takings

SCOTUS Affirmed Penn Coal - temporary interference, even if it is complicated and combined with a TDR did not eliminate all value of the property and no compensation was required;Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001, 5th) The land owner was denied a permit to fill 18 acres of coastal wetlands to construct a beach club and was therefore an unlawful taking. The Supreme Court found that claims are ripe for adjudication--most importantly, acquisition of title after the effective date of regulations does not bar regulatory taking claims. The case was remanded.;Berman v. Parker 1954, Supreme Court

Eminent domain

Upheld the right of D.C. to demolish a dept store as part of a redevelopment scheme for a generally blighted area, even though the store itself wasn't blighted;Kelo v. City of New London 2005: Eminent domain case: Local governments may force the sale of private property and make way for private economic development when officials decide it would benefit the public.;Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection 2010 - can there be a judicial taking?

What if a court redefines property rights in a way that takes away the owner's property rights;Nollan v. California Coastal Commission 1987 - Exactions - SCOTUS decides there must be "Essential Nexus"

Nollan must donate a beach access easement to preserve a view of the beach;Dolan v. City of Tigard 1997 - Exactions - owner is required to provide a bike path

SCOTUS - essential nexus is met, but now new "Rough Proportionality" - now both need to be met;Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District 2013 - Cash contribution required to make drainage and other improvements before development permit is issued - can there be a taking when there hasn't even been a permit issues - SCOTUS says yes

Cash contribution can be thought of as an exaction - going too far;2 types of due process Procedural Due Process - How does the government apply the law to an individual - must avoid being arbitrary and capricious - must provide reasonable notice

Substantive Due Process - The Court will examine the content of the law - does not normally come up with land use cases

No compensation - law just gets overturned;City of East Lake v. Forest City Enterprises 1976 - is a zoning referendum an invalid thing that gives responsibility to the public?

SCOTUS - maybe, but not in this case becase of Ohio law;Fasano v. Board of County Commissioners of Washington County 1973 - Zoning is quasi-judicial , not legislative, state laws vary;Equal Protection 2 basic rules

1. Treat likes alike

2. No illegitimate decisions - impacts a fundamental right - impacts a historically protected class (race, religion, national origin);Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. "Equal Protection"

1977 - Church wants to build low-income housing in largely white suburb

SCOTUS - you must prove actual intent to discriminate;Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas "Equal Protection"

1974 - Town wanted to limit the number of student housing by defining "family"

SCOTUS upheld the law so students are not a protected class;City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center Equal Protection

1985 - SCOTUS did not want mental retardation to be a protected class category;Village of Willowbrook v. Olech Equal Protection

2000 - Olech was able to prove that the town did not like him - SCOTUS finds that there can be a class of one;Section 1983, Civil Rights Act of 187term-301

Rancho Palos Verdes v. Abrams 2005 - He had a radio tower and neighbors went up in arms and he was denied a permit;City of Edmonds v. Oxford House 1994 - Was the city's restriction on number of people living together reasonable? SCOTUS - no, because it was not based on health and safety - used the Fair Housing Act as a basis;Mount Laurel I and II 1975 and 1983

Town imposed restrictions on low-income housing. NJ Supreme Court upheld that municipalities have to provide fair share. Does not apply outside of NJ but was an inspiration elsewhere.;Young v. American Mini Theaters 1976 - Challenge to a dispersal strategy for adult entertainment. SCOTUS upheld the law;City of Renton v. Playtime Theaters 1986 - SCOTUS - Rules must be content-neutral, (time, place and manner can be regulated but not content);Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission 1980 - NY prohibits promotional advertising by public utilities

SCOTUS finds that this was a complete ban and it was not upheld

4-part test:

1. Lawful and not misleading

2. Substantial government interest

3. Substantially advances this interest

4. Not more restrictive than necessary;Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego 1981 - All off-premises signs banned, SCOTUS overturned this regulation;Larkin v. Grendel's Den 1982 - Allowed churches and schools to issue veto of alcohol permits - SCOTUS overturned law;Jehovah's Witness cases 1930s/1940s - No permits can be required to distribute materials;Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah The Court ruled that laws banning animal sacrifice were unconstitutional because they targeted the Santeria religion.

3-part test:

1. Purpose must be secular

2. Should not advance or prohibit religious activities

3. Not too much governmental interference;Oregon Employment Division v. Smith 1990 - Native Amercians fired for smoking peyote as part of religious ceremony - SCOTUS upheld firing because it was generally applied;RLUIPA (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act) 2000: Land use regulations may not impose a substantial burden on religious organizations;Civil Liberties for Urban Believers v. City of Chicago 2003: Churches sued under RLUIPA because they were required to do a bunch of shit in order to get approvals for development - SCOTUS upheld law because burden was generally applied and not substantial;Mugler v. Kansas 1887 - Law declared liquor sales to be a nuisance - owner of brewery sued - SCOTUS upheld ordinance;Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co 1926 - This is when SCOTUS approved zoning and comprehensive planning;Standard State Zoning Enabling Acts Euclidean Zoning - black and white, little discretion;Nectow v. City of Cambridge 1928 - similar to Euclid, but here there was a contract to sell the property but it was no longer valid because the property was rezoned - SCOTUS overturned this rezone;Golden v. City of Ramapo NY Growth Management

1972 - Govern timing of development within community - consistency with comprehensive plan and zoning - permits wouldn't be issued until public services were available

Consistency and concurrency

SCOTUS - no exclusionary intent;Construction Industry Association v. City of Petaluma 1975 - Permit rationing to time the installation of public facilities

SCOTUS upheld;Associated Homebuilders v. City of Livermore 1976 - Growth management case, SCOTUS says it is permissible to phase growth to allow for relief of overcrowded schools and sewer treatment facilities and to increase water reserves.;April v. City of Broken Arrow 1989 - Concerned floodplain regulations, which the court upheld as not being a taking because they pertain to public safety;Spur Industries v. Webb Development Company 1972 - Involved a new retirement community's efforts to prohibit the operation of a pre-existing feedlot; this was a 'coming to the nuisance' case and the feedlot was allowed to continue to operate;City of Los Angeles v. Taxpayers for Vincent 1984 - SCOTUS found that an ordinance banning all signs on public property was not in violation of the first amendment;City of Ladue v. Gilleo 1994 - SCOTUS decides that it was not permissible for a sign ordinance to ban some signs based on their content;