Legal Principles & Cases in Planning
Quiz yourself by thinking what should be in
each of the black spaces below before clicking
on it to display the answer.
Help!
|
|
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dillon's Rule | Gave local governments only those powers that were expressly given to them by the state constitution or legislative statute
🗑
|
||||
| Police Power | Capacity of the state to regulate behavior and enforce order - general welfare, morals, health and safety. Zoning is an exercise of police power.
🗑
|
||||
| Euclid v. Ambler, US Supreme Court 1926 | Established zoning as a valid exercise of police power by local government. Alfred Bettman filed brief with the court
🗑
|
||||
| 5th Amendment | Just compensation for takings; due process
🗑
|
||||
| 1st Amendment | Freedom of Speech
Freedom of Religion
Freedom of Association
🗑
|
||||
| 14th Amendment | Due Process Clause
Substantive Due Process
Procedural Due Process
Equal Protection
🗑
|
||||
| Due Process Clause. | State can make needful regulations for the protection of public welfare, compensation is not required where these regulations are reasonable although they may deprive an owner of the use of his property.
🗑
|
||||
| Village of Belle Terre v. Borea; US Supreme Court 1972 | Court extended zoning to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles as legitimate under police power. Decision upheld regulation that banned more than 2 unrelated people living together.
14th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| Vill of Arlington Heights v Metro Housing Dev Corp; | USSC 1977 Concerned denial of a rezoning from single family to multifamily and question of whether racial discrimination. Denial upheld by USSC.
14th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| City of Boerne v Flores; US Supreme Court 1997 | Church in historic district prohibited from enlarging. Found to exceed the enforcement powers of the 14th Amendment.
🗑
|
||||
| Welch v Swasey; US Supreme Court 1909 | established right of municipalities to regulate building height. such regulations (including mode of construction) for the safety, comfort and convenience of other people and the benefit of property owners are generally valid.
🗑
|
||||
| Eubank v City of Richmond US Supreme Court 1912 | Affirmed the use of setback regulations (overturned setbacks in this case though because the implementation - other property owners established setbacks - was unreasonable exercise of police power)
🗑
|
||||
| Hadacheck v Sebastian, US Supreme Court 1915 | approved the regulation of the location of land uses (zoning - police power). Existing brickyard became surrounded by residential area. Regulations precluded his continued use.
🗑
|
||||
| Nectow v City of Cambridge; US Supreme Court 1928 | Used a rational basis test to strike down a zoning ordinance because it violated due process clause - did not promote public health, safety, morals or welfare (14th Amendment)
🗑
|
||||
| Macromedia v City of San Diego; US Supreme Court 1981 | overruled an ordinance that banned off-premise commercial signs because it discriminated between commercial and non-commercial (not banned). 1st Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| Young v American Mini Theaters; USSC 1976 | upheld zoning ordinance that dispersed adult business throughout the city (Detroit) 1st Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| City of Renton v Playtime Theaters; USSC 1986 | upheld zoning ordinance that restrict adult use to single district. ok to restrict time, place, and manner because treating traffic and crime (secondary effects) no the content. City does not have to guarantee available land at reasonable price. 1st
🗑
|
||||
| Religious Land Use & Inst Person Act of 2000 | No government may implement land use regulations in a manner that imposes substantial burden on the religious assembly or institution. Govt must demonstrate reg furthers compelling govt interest and it is the least restrictive means of doing so.
🗑
|
||||
| Pennsylvania Coal v Mahon; US Supreme Court 1922 | If a land use regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking. 5th Amendment.
🗑
|
||||
| Berman v Parker; US Supreme Court 1954 | held aesthetics and urban redevelopment is a valid public purpose to exercise eminent domain. Precursor to Kelo.
5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| Penn Central Trans v NYC; US Supreme Court 1978 | Air rights - Penn Station wanted to expand - prohibited by zoning. Court decision it was not a taking. Considered extent value declined, economic viability left remaining, and character of regulation to determine if it took property rights.
5th Amend.
🗑
|
||||
| Agins v City of Tiburon; US Supreme Court 1980 | Upheld city's right to zone property at low-density. Not a taking.
5th Amendment.
🗑
|
||||
| Loretto v Teleprompter Manhattan CATV; USSC 1982 | Where there is a physical occupation there is a taking. (law required cable facilities on private properties)
5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| 1st English Evan Lutheran Church v Cty of LA; USSC 1987 | If a property is unusable for a period of time (due to regulation) the property owner can require compensation. Allowed damages as opposed to invalidation as a remedy for regulatory takings.
5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| Nollan v California Coastal Commission; USSC 1987 | Looked at "essential nexus". Regs must serve substantial public purpose - the exation and the public purpose must be reasonably related. CCC requirement for easement was not reasonable.
5th Amendment.
🗑
|
||||
| Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council; USSC 1992 | A taking has occurred if after the reg is in pace there is a total reduction in value to a property. Defined categorical regulatory takings and an exception for regulations rooted in background principles of law.
5th Amendment.
🗑
|
||||
| Dolan v Tigard, US Supreme Court 1994 | "Rational Nexus" test was furthered to "rough proportionality" test. Conditions that require deeding portions of a property to the govt can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development.
🗑
|
||||
| Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; USSC 1997 | Claim of a taking was ripe for adjudication. (Did Suitum have to transfer development rights before suing for a taking?)
🗑
|
||||
| City of Monterrey v Del Monte Dunes; US Supreme Court 1999 | Despite meeting zoning regs and comprehensive plan, development was repeatedly denied permits. Court determined compensation was due.
🗑
|
||||
| Palazzolo v Rhode Island; US Supreme Court 2001 | Acquiring property after a regulation takes effect does not bar regulatory takings claims.
🗑
|
||||
| Tahoe-Sierra Pres Council v Tahoe Regl Planning Agency; | US Supreme COurt 2002 A temporary moratorium on development does not constitute a regulatory taking.
5th Amendment.
🗑
|
||||
| Lingle v Chevron; US Supreme Court 2005 | Threw our takings test related to whether a regulation "substantially advances" legitimate state interests - imprecise and not appropriate.
5th Amendment
🗑
|
||||
| City of Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams; US Supreme Court 2005 | Established the remedies available to a property owner if a local jurisdiction violates the Telecommunications Act. May remedy violation and issue permit - but not receive damages.
🗑
|
||||
| Kelo v City of New London; US Supreme COurt 2005 | Economic development is a valid use of eminent domain. Power of eminent domain was not expanded or restricted but public ownership is not the only way to promote a public purpose.
🗑
|
||||
| San Remo Hotel v San Francisco; USSC 2005 | State courts are fully competent to adjudicate constitutional challenges to local land use decisions.
🗑
|
||||
| Cheney v Village 2 at New Hope; Pennsylvania 1968 | Legitimized the planned unit development process. Not in violation of the municipal comp plan or an illegal delegation of legislative power to the planning commission.
🗑
|
||||
| Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v Volpe; USSC 1971 | Established the "hard look" doctrine for environmental impact review. Federal funds may not be used to impact a public park if a feasible and prudent alternative route exists. If no alt - harm must be minimized
🗑
|
||||
| Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v AEC; | AEC Atomic Energy Commission. Made NEPA requirements judicially enforceable. DC Circuit Court 1971
🗑
|
||||
| Sierra Club v Morton; US Supreme Court 1972 | Opened up environmental citizen suits to discipline the resource agencies (standing)
🗑
|
||||
| Golden v Planning Board of Ramapo; NY 1972 | Adequate municipal facilities were required to proceed with subdivision development. Constituted a rational attempt to provide sequential and orderly growth.
🗑
|
||||
| Just v Marinette County; Wisconsin 1972 | Landowner has no absolute and unlimited right to change the essential natural character of his land to use it for a purpose for which it is unsuited and which injures the rights of others.
🗑
|
||||
| Fasano v Board of Cty Comm of Washington County; Oregon 1973 | Required zoning to be consistent with comprehensive plans. Rezoning is quasi-judicial - the applicant bears the burden to justify the rezoning.
🗑
|
||||
| Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill; US Supreme Court 1978 | Held the Endangered Species Act of 1973 prohibits the completion and operation of the Tellico Dam.
🗑
|
||||
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v Mt Laurel II; NJ 1983 | Affirmed and refined state constitutional requirement for fair share of low-moderate income housing - created fair housing model remedy for exclusionary zoning. Consolidation of 6 cases.
🗑
|
||||
| Williamson Cty Regl Planning Comm v Hamilton Bank; USSC 1985 | Defined the ripeness doctrine for judicial review of takings claims. Claim of a taking is premature where property has not sought relief by variance and condemnation procedures.
🗑
|
||||
| Babbitt v Sweet Home Chapter Greater Oregon; USSC 1995 | Applied Endangered Species Act to land development. Definition of harm - significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife.
🗑
|
||||
| Munn v Illinois, US Supreme Court 1876 | A state law regulating pricing did not constitute a taking. Established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest.
🗑
|
||||
| Thomas Cusack v City of Chicago; US Supreme COurt 1917 | neighbor consent to commerical signage required when more than 1/2 of block is residential. Valid exercise of police power to allow the affected residents to voice concerns and provide consent.
🗑
|
||||
| Town of Windsor v Whitnet; Connecticut 1920 | PC duty to make surveys, maps, designate public streets, layouts. Held valid exercise police power when it regulates the free exercise private property that is detrimental to public interest.
🗑
|
||||
| Romar Realty v Board of Commissioners; New Jersey 1921 | Regulation prohibiting construction of one-story building within setback of 80' was not a proper exercise of police power. Only to beautify, did not relate to public welfare.
🗑
|
Review the information in the table. When you are ready to quiz yourself you can hide individual columns or the entire table. Then you can click on the empty cells to reveal the answer. Try to recall what will be displayed before clicking the empty cell.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
To hide a column, click on the column name.
To hide the entire table, click on the "Hide All" button.
You may also shuffle the rows of the table by clicking on the "Shuffle" button.
Or sort by any of the columns using the down arrow next to any column heading.
If you know all the data on any row, you can temporarily remove it by tapping the trash can to the right of the row.
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Created by:
katec363