Busy. Please wait.
or

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 
or

Username is available taken
show password

why


Make sure to remember your password. If you forget it there is no way for StudyStack to send you a reset link. You would need to create a new account.
We do not share your email address with others. It is only used to allow you to reset your password. For details read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.


Already a StudyStack user? Log In

Reset Password
Enter the associated with your account, and we'll email you a link to reset your password.
Don't know
Know
remaining cards
Save
0:01
To flip the current card, click it or press the Spacebar key.  To move the current card to one of the three colored boxes, click on the box.  You may also press the UP ARROW key to move the card to the "Know" box, the DOWN ARROW key to move the card to the "Don't know" box, or the RIGHT ARROW key to move the card to the Remaining box.  You may also click on the card displayed in any of the three boxes to bring that card back to the center.

Pass complete!

"Know" box contains:
Time elapsed:
Retries:
restart all cards
share
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

Planning Law

AICP Exam Prep HCC - Law

TermDefinition
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