Property II Class 14 Wednesday 92618 Power Point

  • Slides: 18
Download presentation
Property II: Class #14 Wednesday 9/26/18 Power Point Presentation National Women’s Health & Fitness

Property II: Class #14 Wednesday 9/26/18 Power Point Presentation National Women’s Health & Fitness Day v. National Pancake Day

Music to Accompany Moore Meat Loaf, Bat Out of Hell (1977) • Regular Office

Music to Accompany Moore Meat Loaf, Bat Out of Hell (1977) • Regular Office Hours: • As Scheduled Tomorrow • By Appoinrment Only During Break (Feel Free to E-Mail) • Zoning Materials for Week after Break Posted by Saturday @ 5 • I’ll Complete Info Memos on Chapters 1 & 2 During Break • I’ll Make Available Feedback on 2 d Written Assignment When Done

Chapter 3: Selected Topics in Zoning

Chapter 3: Selected Topics in Zoning

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID ZONING &

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID ZONING & DEFERENCE US CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM • Federal Govt Entirely a Creature of the Document. Only Has Powers Traceable to Explicit Constitutional Provisions • States, by Contrast, Have Inherent Power • Police Powers: Authority to Regulate to further Health, Safety, Welfare (broadly defined) & Morals • State Power Extends Until it Reaches Explicit Limit in Document • E. g. , Bill of Rights or 14 th Amdt • E. g. , Contrary Grant of Authority to Fed’l Govt

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04: CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04: CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING & DEFERENCE • US CONSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM • States Have Inherent Power • Police Powers: Authority to Regulate to further Health, Safety, Welfare (broadly defined) & Morals • State Power Extends Until it Reaches Explicit Limit in Document • For Ordinary Economic Legislation, Fedl Courts Give States Near Total Deference • BUT Deference Limited if State Drawing Lines Based on Suspect Classification (like Race or Religion) or If Legislation Arguably Limits a Fundamental Right Like Speech or Marriage)

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04: CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04: CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING & DEFERENCE • 3. 02: What Rationales for Upholding Segregation of Land Uses at the Expense of the Interests of Individual Owners? (Here O alleged 75% loss in value) • Sic utere tuo … (Use land in way that doesn’t harm others Z 4 2 d para) • Concern re industrial uses injuring residential (esp. children} • Evidence Segregation furhers interests re fire, traffic/accidents • If legislative rationale is fairly debatable, defer • Some reference to democracy on top of Z 5 • Can you explain the Court’s analogy to nuisance law on Z 4? ` • Why isn’t nuisance law itself sufficient to handle some or all of the problems the Court addresses?

CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & SELECTED ZONING DQ 3. 02 & & 3.

CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & SELECTED ZONING DQ 3. 02 & & 3. 04: DEFERENCE • 3. 02: What Rationales for Upholding Segregation of Land Uses at the Expense of the Interests of Individual Owners? (Here O alleged 75% loss in value) • Sic utere tuo … (Z 4 2 d para) • Concern re industrial uses njuring residential • Ev Segregation furhers interests re fire, traffic/accidents • If legislative rationale is fairly debatable, defer • Some reference to democracy on top of Z 5 • Can you explain the Court’s analogy to nuisance law on Z 4? ` • Why isn’t nuisance law itself sufficient to handle some or all of the problems the Court addresses?

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04: CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING

SELECTED DQ 3. 02 & 3. 04: CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING & DEFERENCE • 3. 04: Famous Defense of Deference on Z 4 • Apply equally well to HOA?

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID &

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING SOCIAL CONSEQUE NCES • 3. 01: Difference between Cumulative & Non. Cumulative Zoning? • Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of Each?

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID &

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING SOCIAL CONSEQUE NCES • 3. 03: Many Q the Court’s Acceptance of the Decision to Separate Apt. Complexes from Other Residences • By Contrast, Until Quite Recently. Separating Residential from Commercial or Industrial Uses has been Relatively Non. Controversial

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID &

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING SOCIAL CONSEQUE NCES • 3. 03: Many Q the Court’s Acceptance of the Decision to Separate Apt. Complexes from Other Residences • How Does the SCt Defend the Treatment of Apts? (Z 6) • A) hinder development of detached houses • B) interfere w air & light thru bulk • C) one followed by more • D) increased traffic etc. • E) deprive children of privelege of quiet and open spaces for play • What are SCt’s Assuimptions re Apt. Complexes?

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID &

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING SOCIAL CONSEQUE NCES • 3. 03: Many Q the Court’s Acceptance of the Decision to Separate Apt. Complexes from Other Residences • Who is Harmed & Benefitted by Segregation iof Single. Family Homes from Apts?

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID &

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING SOCIAL CONSEQUE NCES • 3. 03: Many Q the Court’s Acceptance of the Decision to Separate Apt. Complexes from Other Residences • Who is Harmed & Benefitted by Segregation iof Single. Family Homes from Apts? • Note distinction betw single family homes & duplex (U-1 v. U-2) • TCt said putting duplexes & apts in higher zones was economic segregation. True? OK if true?

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID &

DQs SELECTED 3. 01, 3. 03, 3. 05 CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & ZONING SOCIAL CONSEQUE NCES • 3. 05: This is a Lochner Era case & in this period, SCT Majority struck down lots of Progressive Era state legislation as interfering too much with rights of contract and property. Why might the majority have been more comfortable with the Zoning plan at issue here than it was with minimum wage and maximum hour statutes?

CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & SELECTED ZONING DQs 3. 01, 3. 03, SOCIAL

CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN EUCLID & SELECTED ZONING DQs 3. 01, 3. 03, SOCIAL CONSEQUE 3. 05 NCES • 3. 05: This is a Lochner Era case & in this period, SCT Majority struck down lots of Progressive Era state legislation as interfering too much with rights of contract and property. Why might the majority have been more comfortable with the Zoning plan at issue here than it was with minimum wage and maximum hour statutes? • Possible Answers Include: • Tendency to Support Property Values (in Single Family Homes) • “Reciprocity” = Limits on Nearby Lots Create Reciprocal Benefits for Me & You • No Loss of Rights for Which O Explicitly Conteracted

DQ 3. 06 SELECTED NECTOW CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN As TINY ZONING LIMIT ON

DQ 3. 06 SELECTED NECTOW CHAPTER 3 TOPICS IN As TINY ZONING LIMIT ON EUCLID • 3. 06: Zoning in Nectow is uncostitutional as applied to the Respondent’s Parcel where: • Value of parcel reduced to nothing • Application to the parcel furthers no Police Powerr interest. • This is a Tiny Llmitation in Practice. Both facts very unusual. • Qs on Euclid/Nectow

CHAPTER 3 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITI ON BELLE SELECTED & THE TOPICS IN RIGHT TO TERRE

CHAPTER 3 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITI ON BELLE SELECTED & THE TOPICS IN RIGHT TO TERRE & MOORE Belle Terre (2010 Population = 792) & Paradise by the Dashboard Light ZONING PRIVACY

CHAPTER 3 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITI ON BELLE SELECTED & THE TOPICS IN RIGHT TO TERRE

CHAPTER 3 HOUSEHOLD COMPOSITI ON BELLE SELECTED & THE TOPICS IN RIGHT TO TERRE & MOORE ZONING PRIVACY DQ 3. 07 -3. 09: Belle Terre & Relevant Interests 3. 07: In Belle Terre, what are the interests … • Of the municipality? • Of the neighbors? • Of the owner? Which interests seem most important to you?