Aicp Prep - Legal Cases And Terms

Front 1

Police Power

Back 1

the right of government to interfere with private activity (or the use of private property) for the protection of the public health, safety and general welfare. Zoning is the most common use of the police power

Front 2

Dillon's Rule (1868)

Back 2

A local government can exercise the following powers and no more:

1. Those granted in express words

2. Those fairly implied by the powers expressly granted

3. Those essential to the purposes of the corporation, not merely convenient, but indispensible.

Front 3

Home Rule

Back 3

An amendment to a state's constitution granting cities, municipalities, and/or counties the ability to pass laws to govern themselves as they see fit (so long as they obey the state and federal constitutions).

Front 4

Preemption

Back 4

aka "The state giveth, the state taketh away"

When state law supersedes/preempts local law.

Front 5

Standard State Zoning & Enabling Act (1924)

Back 5

Model legislation that, when adopted by a state, granted local governments specific authority to exercise zoning powers.

Front 6

Common Law

Back 6

The traditional unwritten law of England, based on custom and usage by judges and lawyers rather than by written codes. Nuisance laws are are rooted in this type of law.

Front 7

5th Amendment (3 guarantees)

Back 7

1. Substantive Due Process (SDP)

2. Procedural Due Process (PDP)

3. Just compensation for "takings"

Front 8

Due Process clause

Back 8

"no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law"

Front 9

Substantive Due Process

Back 9

1. Requires that a regulation be rationally related to a legitimate public interest

2. Requires that government action not be "arbitrary and capricious"

Front 10

Welch v. Swasey (1909)

Back 10

Boston building height restrictions have a substantial relation to objectives of fire safety and public health. (An important SDP case)

Front 11

Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1926)

Back 11

Upheld that zoning is a valid means of protecting public health, safety and welfare. (An important SDP case)

Front 12

City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises (1976)

Back 12

Upheld the validity of zoning changes that came about due to a citizen referendum. (An important SDP case)

Front 13

Moore v. City of East Cleveland (1978)

Back 13

Definition of family that kept extended relatives from living together did NOT further a legitimate purpose. (An important SDP case)

Front 14

Four additional important Substantive Due Process cases

Back 14

1. Berman

2. Hadacheck

3. Keystone Bituminous

4. Nectow

Front 15

Procedural Due Process

Back 15

based on the fairness of the regulation's procedures.

Front 16

Fasano v. Washington County (1973)

Back 16

Rezoning is quasi-judicial (and therefore open to PDP protections). This case upheld that there must be a fair process put in place for rezoning action. (An important PDP case)

Front 17

What must local governments do to satisfy PDP (procedural due process) for quasi-judicial proceedings (i.e. BZA, planning commission)

Back 17

1. timely notice

2. a hearing

3. standards upon which decisions are made

4. findings of fact

5. decision-makers that are free from bias

6. a recording of proceedings

Front 18

Takings (purpose of clause in 5th Amendment)

Back 18

To prevent the government from "forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole"

- Armstrong v United States (1960)

Front 19

Armstrong v. United States (1960)

Back 19

The government should not participate in: "forcing some people alone to bear public burdens, which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole."

(An important Takings case)

Front 20

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council (1993)

Back 20

1. A taking has not occurred if the landowner never possessed the right to begin with.

2. Not a taking if the action of the government is directed at abating or preventing a nuisance.

3. "[W]hen the owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good...he has suffered a taking."

(An important Takings case)

Front 21

Public Use

Back 21

Important in taking cases:

1. No debate: public infrastructure, access, or buildings

2. Contentious and fought over in the courts: use is also public if rationally related to a conceivable public purpose

Front 22

Berman v. Parker (1954)

Back 22

Urban redevelopment plan for Washington DC in which eminent domain was upheld for blighted AND non-blighted properties.

(An important Takings case)

aesthetics and urban renewal is a valid public purpose

Front 23

Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984)

Back 23

Upheld state law designed to break up historic land oligopoly by condemnation and transfer to tenants. Deemed ok if public advantage conferred even if property will not be used by general public.

(An important Takings case)

Front 24

Kelo v. New London CT (2005)

Back 24

The Court ruled that the city's taking of private property to sell for private development qualified as a "public use" within the meaning of the takings clause. The city was not taking the land simply to benefit a certain group of private individuals, but was following an economic development plan. Such justifications for land takings, the majority argued, should be given deference. The takings here qualified as "public use" despite the fact that the land was not going to be used by the public. The Fifth Amendment did not require "literal" public use, the majority said, but the "broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose.'"

(An important Takings case)

Front 25

US v. Kansas City Life Ins Co (1950)

Back 25

A taking occurs when govt action results in actual permanent invasion of land, not merely an injury to the property (this case centered on a public dam flooding a property).

(An important Takings case and example of "physical occupation" takings)

Front 26

*Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV (1982)

Back 26

A taking occurs even if impact on landowner is minimal (this case revolved around forced installation of cable boxes on apartment buildings).

(An important Takings case and example of "physical occupation" takings)

Front 27

*Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922)

Back 27

considered the seminal regulatory takings case and defined a taking under the 5th amendment.

A regulation can result in a taking, even if the govt never acquires physical possession or authorizes physical occupation.

This is the regulations that "go too far" represent a taking case.

Front 28

Total Deprivation

Back 28

aka "all economically viable use" of a property. An important concept to regulatory taking cases

Front 29

Multifactor Analysis with Regulatory Takings

Back 29

1. Economic Impact of the regulation on the landowner - is the impact extremely severe? Related: Is there offsetting economic advantage?

2. Extent that regulation interferes with reasonable investment-backed expectations.

3. Balance of public need vs. private cost

Front 30

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York (1978)

Back 30

A regulation may still result in an unconstitutional taking, even without showing a total deprivation. (brings in 3-part multi-factor analysis to determine regulatory takings)

(the extent of the diminution of value, interference with investment backed expectations, and the character of the government action)

The court found that the New York City Landmark Preservation Law as applied to the Grand Central Terminal did not constitute a taking.

Front 31

Palazzolo v. Rhode Island (2001)

Back 31

Established that a property owner who acquired title to the property after it was subject to regulations could still bring a takings claim under the Fifth Amendment.

But upheld the ruling that the owner failed to establish a deprivation of all economic value from the property

Front 32

Average Reciprocity of Advantage

Back 32

The net economic loss and benefit to a landowner of a land use regulation. Relevant to regulatory takings cases.

Front 33

Keystone Bituminous v DeBenedictis (1987)

Back 33

Regulation upheld that prevented subsidence of surface land caused by coal mining; because it only prevented the mining of 2% of the available coal, it was not considered a taking.

(an important regulatory takings case)

Front 34

*Tahoe-Sierra v. Tahoe RPA (2002)

Back 34

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency imposed two moratoria on development in the Lake Tahoe Basin while the agency formulated a comprehensive plan for the area. A group of property owners sued, claiming a taking.

A reasonable moratoria is NOT a taking. Also the loss incurred must be greater than just the present right to use land.

(an important regulatory takings case)

Front 35

San Remo Hotel v. San Francisco (2005)

Back 35

A takings claim cannot be relitigated at the federal level when the issues were litigated in state court. (I don't get this one)

aka the "right to bring suit" case

Front 36

Are you tired of studying for the AICP exam?

Back 36

Why yes I am, thanks for asking. Shall we have a refreshing adult beverage?

Front 37

1st English Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Los Angeles County (1987)

Back 37

aka the "temporary deprivation case"

Money damages can be awarded, even for a temporary deprivation, i.e. if losses are suffered between enactment of offending regulation and date it is overturned

The Court held that the L.A. ordinance violated the Constitution. Noting that the fate of the Church's property had been in limbo for over six years (the suit which it had filed in 1979 had been denied a hearing as late as October of 1985), Chief Justice Rehnquist argued that, because the church was unable to use its property during this time, a "taking" of the property had occurred. Thus, the Just Compensation Clause of the Fifth Amendment required the government to exercise one of a number of "options" such as amending the regulation or fair payment for the use of the property in order to protect the Church's constitutional rights.

Front 38

Exaction

Back 38

a requirement imposed on a landowner/developer to pay feeds, provide infrastructure, provide an easement, or give up title as a condition of project approval

Front 39

Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987)

Back 39

Govt must be able to show a RATIONAL NEXUS between the exaction and the anticipated adverse impacts of the project.

The Court found that regulations must serve a substantial public purpose and that exactions are valid as long as the exaction and the project are reasonably related. The court also found that the California Coastal Commission's requirement to dedicate an easement for public beach access was not reasonable (without providing just compensation).

Front 40

Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)

Back 40

Govt must show exaction is ROUGHLY PROPORTIONAL to the burden imposed on the community by the development.

The court found that conditions that require the deeding of portions of a property to the government can be justified where there is a relationship between the nature and extent of the proposed development. The court overturned an exaction that required dedication of a portion of the floodplain by a commercial business that wanted to expand.

Front 41

The two main cases that determined the constitutional parameters for EXACTIONS and what are the legal concepts associated with each case?

Back 41

1. Nollan = Rational Nexus

2. Dolan = Rough Proportionality

bonus: they rhyme!

Front 42

The states ratified the TAKINGS CLAUSE of the 5th amendment in what year?

Back 42

1791, along with the other provisions of the Bill of Rights

Front 43

What does the 5th amendment indicate regarding private property and public use?

Back 43

The takings clause is 12 words long: "Nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation". It is clear that the Takings Clause PRESUPPOSES the government's authority to acquire private property for public use, but within reasonable bounds (i.e. appropriate compensation)

Front 44

How do the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment and the 14th Amendment relate?

Back 44

The 14th Amendment ensures due process of law, while the 5th Amendment ensures that private property cannot be taken for public use without just compensation. For a legal takings to proceed, the property owner must be afforded due process unrelated to ultimate compensation.

Front 45

Takings Clause - narrow/original interpretations vs. later interpretations. What case marked a turning point?

Back 45

Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon (1922) marked a turning point in the accepted interpretation of the takings clause. Prior to this ruling it was generally asserted that the takings clause was only reached through a "direct appropriation" of property or functional equivalent. Prior to this decision, constitutional theorists (for around 130 years) did not believe that the takings clause was reached by regulations of property at all. N.B. The Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon case established "if a regulation goes too far it's the equivalent of a takings".

Front 46

What issue and case set the benchmark for a regulatory taking?

Back 46

Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon (1922) established that physical appropriated remains the important point of reference in establishing a regulatory takings. The Court held that the law at issue was unconstitutional because it had "very nearly the SAME EFFECT for constitutional purposes as APPROPRIATING" private property. *i.e. denies all economically viable use of land and is therefore the equivalent of a physical appropriation.

Front 47

Key finding: Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan (1982)

Back 47

The Court held that physical occupations are takings where they "constitute and actual, permanent invasion of the land, amounting to an appropriation of, and not merely an injury to, the property.

Front 48

Key finding: Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985)

Back 48

The Court stated that in regulatory takings cases, its task is to "distinguish the point at which regulation becomes so onerous that is has the same effect as an appropriation of the property through eminent domain or physical possession."

Front 49

What case is associated with this phrasing from its ruling? "if the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes is "fairly debatable", the legislative judgment must be allowed to control" - meaning, when the justification for such zoning is reasonably debatable on both sides, deference is given to the local government, and the zoning classification stands

Back 49

Village of Euclid v Ambler Realty (1926? 28?)

Front 50

What case is associated with this phrasing from its ruling? "a broad range of governmental purposes and regulations" are constitutionally valid under the Takings Clause.

Back 50

Nollan v California Coastal Commission (1987)

Front 51

Even where the Court has suggested that the Takings Clause might allow for an evaluation of the reasonableness of land use regulation, it has indicated that the Clause applies only to....

Back 51

a truly ARBITRARY exercise of legislative and administrative authority. (See Dolan)

Front 52

What case is associated with this phrasing from its ruling? "the burden properly rests on the party challenging the regulation to prove that it constitutes an arbitrary regulation on property rights."

Back 52

Dolan

Front 53

What case is associated with this phrasing from its ruling? ...an open space zoning ordinance "easily qualifies" as a valid regulatory action under the Takings Clause; "so long as the method and solution the Board eventually chose substantially ADVANCES THE PUBLIC INTEREST, it is not the Court's place to substitute its own judgment for that of the Zoning Board..."

Back 53

Bonnie Briar Syndicate, Inc. v. Town of Mamaroneck (1999)

Front 54

What case is associated with this phrasing from its ruling? ....although "each of us is burdened somewhat by (land use) restrictions, we, in turn, benefit greatly from the restrictions that are placed on others."

Back 54

Keystone Bituminous Coal v. DeBenedictis (1987)

Front 55

Hadacheck v Sebastian (1915)

Back 55

zoning case

The Court first approve the regulation and the location of land uses

Front 56

Eubank v City of Richmond (1912)

Back 56

zoning case

The Court first approved the use of setback regulations, although it overturned the setbacks in this case

Front 57

Young v American Mini Theatres (1975)

Back 57

1st amendment case

location of adult movie theaters

In a 5-4 opinion, the court held that Detroit's ordinances were reasonable, and although erotic material could not be completely suppressed, Detroit had adequate reasons to restrict the distribution of such material.

Front 58

Metromedia Inc v City of San Diego (1980)

Back 58

Does a city ban on "offsite" outdoor advertising signs violate First and Fourteenth Amendment provisions for free speech?

Yes. Justice Byron White wrote the opinion for a 6-3 court. The ban's exception allowing "onsite" advertising discriminated against noncommercial speech. It allowed businesses in commercial properties to interrupt city motorists so long as it was with their own messages yet barred noncommercial advertisers from causing the same level of interruption.

Front 59

Members of City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent (1984)

Back 59

The Court found that the regulation of signs was valid for aesthetic reasons as long as the ordinance does not regulate the content of the sign. If the regulation is based on sign content, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest.

The Court found that aesthetics advance a legitimate state interest. The Court upheld a Los Angeles ordinance that banned attaching signs to utility poles.

Front 60

United States v Gettysburg Electric Railway Company (1896)

Back 60

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

Front 61

Fred French Investing Co. v City of New York (1976)

Back 61

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.

Front 62

Agins v City of Tiburon (1980)

Back 62

Court upheld a city's right to zone property at low-density and determined this was not a taking.

Front 63

FCC v Florida Power Corporation (1987)

Back 63

The public utilities challenged a federal statue that authorized the FCC to regulate rents charged by utilities to cable TV operators for the use of utility poles. The Court ruled that a taking had NOT occurred.

Front 64

Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (1997)

Back 64

Must an owner attempt to sell their development rights before claiming a regulatory taking of property without just compensation?

No

Front 65

City of Monterey v Del Monte Dunes at Monterey Ltd (1999)

Back 65

The Supreme Court upheld a jury award of $1.45 million in favor of the development based on the city's repeated denials of a development permit for a 190-unit residential complex on ocean front property. The development was in conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance. The court found the repeated denials of permits deprived the owner of all economically viable use of the land.

Front 66

Lingle v Chevron USA Inc (2005)

Back 66

The Court overturned a portion of the Agins v. City of Tiburon precedent, declaring that regulation of property effects a taking if it does not substantially advance legitimate state interests. The court found this prong of the formula imprecise and not appropriate for determining if a taking has occurred. The other prong of the formula under Agins related to denial of economically viable use is unaffected.

The Court found that takings clause challenges to regulations had to be based on the severity of the burden that the regulation imposed upon property rights, not the effectivness of the regulation in furthering the governmental interest.

Front 67

City of Rancho Palos Verdes v Abrams (2005)

Back 67

The Court ruled that a licensed radio operator that was denied conditional use permit for an antenna cannot seek damages because it would distort the congressional intent of the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Front 68

Stop the Beach Renourishment Inc v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection (2009)

Back 68

The Supreme Court ruled that submerged lands that would be filled by the state did not represent a taking to the waterfront property owners.

Front 69

Koontz v St. John's River Water Management (2012)

Back 69

The key question facing the court was whether the government is liable for a taking when it denies a permit until the land owner has agreed to dedicate land for a public use. The Supreme Court found in favor of Koontz noting that there was no specific regulation requiring the dedication and mitigation work - and that a taking had occurred.

Front 70

Munn v Illinois (1876)

Back 70

Illinois regulated grain warehouse and elevator rates by establishing maximum rates for their use.

The Court established the principle of public regulation of private businesses in the public interest. The Court found that the regulation of private property does not violate due process when the regulation becomes necessary for the public good.

Front 71

Village of Belle Terre v Boaraas (1974)

Back 71

The court found that a community has the power to control lifestyle and values. The court extended the concept of zoning under police power to include a community's desire for certain types of lifestyles. The court upheld a regulation that prohibited more than two unrelated individuals from living together as a single family.

Front 72

Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Development Corporation (1977)

Back 72

14th amendment case.

The Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (MHDC) contracted with the Village of Arlington Heights ("Arlington") to build racially integrated low- and moderate-income housing. When MHDC applied for the necessary zoning permits, authorizing a switch from a single- to a multiple-family classification, Arlington's planning commission denied the request. Acting on behalf of itself and several minority members, MHDC challenged Arlington's denial as racially discriminatory.

While indicating that Arlington's zoning denial may result in a racially disproportionate impact, the evidence did not show that this was Arlington's deliberate intention. Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded for further consideration.

Front 73

Southern Burlington County NAACP v Township of Mount Laurel (1975)

Back 73

14th amendment case.

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.

Front 74

City of Boerne v Flores (1997)

Back 74

14th amendment case

Challenged the Religious Freedom Act. The City of Boerne, Texas prohibited a church in a historic district from enlarging. The Supreme Court ruled that the act is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional powers that exceeded the enforcement powers of the fourteenth amendment. In the end, the city and church came to an agreement to leave 80 percent of the church intact and allow a new 750-seat auditorium on the rear of the auditorium.

Front 75

Golden v Ramapo (1972)

Back 75

between 1966 and 1969 the Town developed aplan which undertook a number of important changes to its land use laws, including a set of 1969amendments linking new subdivision development to the provision of “adequate publicfacilities

1) Is the Town of Ramapo’s local law denying the right to subdivide property by linkingsubdivision approval to the provision of adequate public facilities an appropriate use ofthe delegated police power? Yes

2) Is the law “exclusionary” and therefore unconstitutional? No

3) Does the law constitute an unconstitutional “taking” under the 5th and 14th amendments?No

catalyzed national debate about growthmanagement