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
Planning Law
AICP Exam Prep HCC - Law
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Pennsylvania Coal Company v. Mahon | Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - while property maybe regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far, it will be recognized as a taking |
| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. | 14th Amendment & Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - upheld zoning as constitutional, as being within the police power of the state |
| Berman v. Parker | Takings Clause - upheld to use eminent domain on unsightly, blighted properties for redevelopment - aesthetics |
| Golden v. Planning Board of Ramapo | Takings Clause - upheld a growth control plan based on the availability of public services |
| Young v. American Mini Theaters | 1st Amendment - communities can zone locations of SOB's without violating 1st Amendment |
| Penn Central v. The City of New York | Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - upheld NYC's Landmark Preservation Law as applied to Grand Central Terminal - barring some development of air rights was not a taking when the interior of property could be put to lucrative use |
| First English Evangelical Church v. County of Los Angeles | Takings Clause - Court rejected that sole remedy for taking is payment of full value of property - city could either buy property outright or revoke ordinance and pay church for losses at time of trial - even a temporary taking requires compensation |
| Nollan v. California Coastal Commission | Takings Clause - expanded Agin's Test # 1 - land use restrictions must be tied directly to specific public purpose - required a nexus between the taking and that state's interest |
| Nexus | the condition has a required degree of connection |
| Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission | Takings Clause - expanded Agin's Test # 2 - found a taking when owner was called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in name of common good |
| Dolan v. City of Tigard | Takings Clause - expanded Agin's Text # 1 - required a reasonable relationship between the conditions to be imposed on a permit and the development's impact - "rough proportionality" |
| Agins v. City of Tiburon | Takings Clause - Restrictions on Use - 2 prong test - 1) does not substantially advance legitimate state interests, 2) denies an owner economically viable use of his land |
| Agins Test # 1 | a zoning law can be a taking if it does not substantially advance a legitimate state interest |
| Agins Test # 2 | a zoning law can be a taking if it denies an owner economically viable use of his land |
| Keystone Bituminous Coal Association v. DeBenedictis | Takings Clause - affirmed Agins Test # 1 - some states interests are more legitimate than others - the more defensible the state's interest, the more likely it will be upheld |
| Munn v. Illinois | 14th Amendment - paved way for future governmental intervention in private development |
| Welch v. Swasey | first authority for communities to regulate development of private property through limitation of building heights and to vary these heights by zone |
| Eubanks v. City of Richmond | setback legislation declared constitutional |
| Hadacheck v. Sebastian | restriction of future profitable uses was not a taking of property without just compensation |
| Town of Windsor v. Whitney | made land subdivision regulations possible by holding that dedication of streets as a prerequisite to platting was possible |
| Metromedia, Inc. v. City of San Diego | 1st Amendment - ordinances that placed tighter restrictions on non-commercial signs than commercial signs violate 1st amendment |
| Renton v. Playtime Theaters | 1st Amendment - upheld separation or concentration requirements for adult uses where a substantial government interest exists (i.e. preserving quality of life) |
| Village of Belle Terre v. Boreas | Equal Protection - upheld power to prohibit more than two unrelated individuals from residing together as a family |
| Southern Burlington County NAACP v. Mount Laurel, NJ | communities in New Jersey must build their "fair share" of affordable housing - precedent setting blow against racial segregation |
| Construction Industry Association of Sonoma County v. Petaluma | communities can restrict the number of building permits granted each year if reasonable |
| Moore v. East Cleveland | Due Process - cities cannot define family so that the definition prevents closely related individuals from living with each other |
| Associated Home Builders v. City of Livermore | allowed for time phasing in future residential growth until performance conditions were met, including schools, sewer, water, and fire protection |
| Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency | Takings Clause - a moratorium imposed during process of devising comprehensive plan does not constitute a taking |
| Kelo v. City of New London | Takings Clause - city does not violate takings clause if it takes private property and sells it for private development with hopes it will help bad economy - city's use of eminent domain for comprehensive redevelopment qualifies as a public use |
| Procedural Due Process | an assurance that all parties to the proceeding are treated fairly and equally- when government acts in a way that denies a citizen of life, liberty, or property, the person must be given notice and the opportunity to be heard |
| Substantive Due Process | payment by government of just compensation to property owners when property is condemned by government action - all governmental intrusions into rights and liberties be fair and reasonable and further a legitimate governmental interest |
| 1st Amendment | freedom of speech, religion, and peaceful assembly |
| 5th Amendment | No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall private property be taken for public use without just compensation |
| 10th Amendment | The powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people |
| 14th Amendment | No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws |
Created by:
hccovi2
Popular Standardized Tests sets