Traditionally, the only legal constraint on the cloak-and-dagger development and exploitation of privately owned real retention was the law of nature of nuisance under which an aggrieved party could go into flirt and claim that his neighbor was violating the maxim of sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas --i.e. was use his dimension to harm that of his neighbor's and invoke the power of the state to mark the nuisance. The only other limitations, which had their origins in the Magna Charta and English ingrained law, are contained in the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment and the Due bear on and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment, which provide, respectively, as follows:
"nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."
"nor shall any soil deprive any person of . . . property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the peer protection of the laws."
The 5th Amendment has been held to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy sandbag v. City of Chicago 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
By the turn of the century, some cities ( much(prenominal) as Boston) had enacted ordinances lim
Appeal of Kit-Mar Building, Inc., 439 Pa. 466, 268 A.2d 765 (1970).
Cal. Government calculate sec. 65300 & 65915 (West Supp. 1994).
The Euclid decision has come to be known as the principal Supreme Court case upholding the zoning power of municipalities against constitutional challenges and as in effect the original source of legitimacy of exclusionary zoning.
Zoning can take umpteen forms. The most habitual are restrictions on use, the restrictions of areas into commercial, industrial and residential use, building height limitations, etc. In suburban areas, other restrictions are employ in residential areas much(prenominal) minimum lot size requirements, side lot line requirements, minimum area requirements, supreme population density requirements, and occupancy requirements.
The Euclid case involved many different kinds of zoning restrictions.
Other State Cases. Another kink in a number of cases were holdings that mobile homes could not be totally excluded from a municipality, which cases in Montana, New York, New Jersey, pop and Rhode Island held. Most state courts have held that the location of mobil or manufacture homes could be restricted to specified areas, but some cases, such as Robinson Township v. Knoll, 302 N.W.2d 146 (Mich. 1981) and Cannon v. Coweta County, 389 S.E.2d 329 (Ga. 1990) have found such restrictions to be unreasonable.
On remand, the 7th Circuit found that even so Title VIII had been violated and that the settlement had a statutory obligation under FHA to refrain from zoning policies which effectively foreclosed admit for low income families within its borders. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 558 F.2d 1283 (7th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1025 (1978). A similar analysis and result ensued in Huntington first NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926 (2d Cir.), aff'd, 488 U.S. 15 (1988) (per curiam). Another case in which the sixth Circuit had little difficulty in determining that a
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.
No comments:
Post a Comment