Busy. Please wait.

show password
Forgot Password?

Don't have an account?  Sign up 

Username is available taken
show password


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
remaining cards
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:
restart all cards
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

AICP PLanning Law 6

Planning History 1976 - 2002

Village of Arlington Heights v Metro Development Corp (1977) Stated that there must be intent to cause discrimination in order for an ordinance to be a violation of the 14th Ammendment... Even if the result of the law is discriminatory in nature.
Oakwood at Madison v Township of Madison (1977) Established criteria for determining if an ordinance is exclusionary and criteria for rectifying an ordinances it is determined to be exclusionary.
Penn Central Transport Co v City of NY (1978) First ruling to uphold a preservation law. Reasons are 1) preservation is a general welfare concern 2) economic value of property remained even if some of the uses were restricted
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church v LA County (1987) Upheld County's regulations about building in a flood prone area 1) legitimate public interest 2) did not deny all economic viability 3) set legitmate set of time to find solution
Nollan v California Coastal Comm'n Upheld a public interest in protecting beach access, but overturned beach right-of-way for a property develpment because it lacked a nexus with that interest. Court said other legislations (height limits, width restrictions, or fence prohibitions) OK.
Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (1992) Uverturned ordinance which took right of owner to build on coastline even though the intent to protect the shoreline from erosion is state interest. Said that even when there is a noxius use, a government must pay for loss of economically viablility.
Dolan v City of Tigar (1994) Overturned PC requirement that women deed land to the city in flood plain as part of the expansion of her business as a taking. Rather than deed property the PC should have simply required the land to be left open.
San Jose Christian Colllege v City of Morgan Hill (2002) Stated that a law that prevented a rezoning of a hospital to a school even if it meant that a religious organization was prevented from expanding their school.
Created by: kathie_we