I. ZONING AND THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS (of landowners and developers) 1.

MAJOR POLICY ARGUMENTS UNDERLYING LAND USE CLAIMS DP (14th): requires each zoning restriction be reasonably related to a legitimate government objective Takings Clause (5th): used by some courts to examine reasonableness until Lingle EP Clause (14th) / Takings Clause (5th): prevents landowners from shouldering unfair burdens DP (14th) / Takings Clause (5th): interferes with settled expectations 1st Amendment: free expression, free religious exercise, privacy and association Euclid v. Ambler Realty (1) presumption of constitutionality (2) constitutional if fairly debatable: or unless arbitrary and capricious (3) ordinance must be rationally related to health, safety, morals or general welfare when you bring a facial challenge, the zoning ordinance is considered as a wholevery difficult to succeed here 2. SUBSTANTIVE DP: States Police Power to Regulate Land Use Is zoning constitutional? Is it consistent with states zoning power? Does government have the authority to regulate? judicial deference: unless arbitrary, local government knows bestconsistent with states police power Nectow v. City of Cambridge P wants to use entire land for industrial purposes but some of it is zoned residential. Court upholds as applied challenge- not related to health, safety, or general welfare. How far does police power go today? State ex rel. Stoyanoff v. Berkeley - Land owner tried to build an ultramodern residence (ugly house) that did not fit in with the surrounding homes but satisfied all additional zoning and building codes, the Architectural Review board of Ladue denied the permit. - SC found for City because: 1. Missouri Zoning Enabling Act (modeled after SZEA) authorized architectural review. 2. aesthetic objectives of the program were permissible when coupled with the citys interest in promoting the general welfare and maintaining property values 3. standard of decision (to prevent unsightly, grotesque, or unsuitable structure in appearance, detrimental to the welfare of the surrounding property or residence) was not inadequate to entail an unconstitutional delegation power. Kuvin v. Gables - Kuvin parked his F-150 on the street in a residential area of Coral Gables and was given a violation based on sections 8-11 and 8-12, which prohibit parking a truck (the definition clearly includes F-150s) anywhere at any time in a residential area (including a private driveway) or public street between 7 am and 7 pm. Court found for the City, now decision is appealed. Held for Kuvin. - Citys says they are policing the safety, morals, and general well being of citizens however there is no discernible relationship between this municipal regulation applied to a vehicle, government cannot distinguish based on personal taste.

Anderson v. City of Issaquah - Anderson submits building plans to Development Commission to build on his commercial property but was rejected four times because the buildings dont fit in with the character of Issaquah. Trial court found for town, Anderson appeals. - Trial court decision reversed and ordered the town to issue a building certificate because the requirements did not give effective meaning, too subjective, building design requirements were unconstitutionally vague Is the challenged action legislative or administrative? legislative actions: purpose of policy irrelevant, use rational basis analysisdoes a rational basis exist between the policy and any conceivable legitimate government objective administrative actions: court determine whether decision maker acted rationally based upon evidence, will be set aside as arbitrary only if record contains no rational basis for decision 3. EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Line Drawing Class of One Claims