Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
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
AICP Law
| Description | Case |
|---|---|
| Ok to have adequate public facilities ordinance | Golden v Planning Board of Ramapo |
| Ok to have Building permit quotas | Cosntruction Industry of Sonoma v city of Petaluma |
| Ok to have moratoria | Associated Home builders of Greater E. Bay v City of Livermore |
| OK to regulate building height | Welch v Swasey |
| OK to have setback regs | Eubank v City of Richmond |
| OK to regulate for LU | Hadacheck v Sebastian |
| Zoning is a valid exercise of police power | Euclid v Ambler |
| Zoning must have a valid public purpose | Nectow v Cambridge |
| Can regulate signs for aesthetics | Members of City Council v Taxpayers for Vincent |
| Can't regulate content (commercial and non commercial treated the same) | Metromedia v City of San Diego |
| Ok to regulate secondary effects (time, place, manner restrictions) | City of Renton v Playtime Theaters |
| OK to decentralize SOB | Young v American Mini Theaters |
| Historic Preservation is a valid exercise of police power | US v Gettysburg Electric Railway |
| Aesthetics is a valid exercise of police power | Berman v Parker |
| If a regulation goes too far it could be a taking | Penn Coal v Mahon |
| A regulation could be a taking once you consider the diminuation in value, interference with investment backed expectations and the character of the goverment actions | Penn Central v city of New York |
| A physical occupation is a taking | Loretto v Teleprompter Manhatten |
| If a property is unuseable for a period of time it could be a taking | First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v County of LA |
| Some state interests might be higher than others - the regulation must be justified by the public interest | Keystone Bitmus Coal v DeBenedictus |
| Upheld right to zone property at low density, not a taking | Agins v City of Tiburon |
| Exactions must be reasonably related to development | Nollan v Californoa Coastal commission |
| Must be a Rational Nexus (Rough Proportionality) between development and exaction | Dolan v City of Tigard |
| A total diminuation in value is a taking | Lucas v S. Carolina coastal commission |
| A takings claim for TDR isn;t ripe until you try to sell | Suitum v Tahoe Regional Planning Agency |
| Moratoria is not a taking | TAhoe-Sierra Preservation Council v Tahoe RPA |
| economic development is a valid public purpose | KELO |
| can regulate lifestyle (unrelated individuals living together) | Village of Belle Terre v Boarra |
| not ok for zoning to be racially motivated, and for the ultimate effect to be discriminatory | Village of Arlington Heights v Metropolitan Housing Devlopment Co. |
| created the model for fair share housing | S. Burlington NAACP v Mount Laurel |
Created by:
nolaplanner