Constitutional System and Segregation of Land Uses

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

2. Music to Accompany MooreMeat 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 2d Written Assignment When Done

3. Chapter 3: Selected Topics in Zoning

4. 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 14thAmdt • E.g., Contrary Grant of Authority to Fed’lGovt

5. 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)

6. 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 uteretuo … (Use land in way that doesn’t harm others Z4 2d 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 Z5 • Can you explain the Court’s analogy to nuisance law on Z4?` • Why isn’t nuisance law itself sufficient to handle some or all of the problems the Court addresses?

7. 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 uteretuo … (Z4 2d 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 Z5 • Can you explain the Court’s analogy to nuisance law on Z4?` • Why isn’t nuisance law itself sufficient to handle some or all of the problems the Court addresses?

8. 3.04: Famous Defense of Deference on Z4 • Apply equally well to HOA?

9. 3.01: Difference between Cumulative & Non-Cumulative Zoning? • Relative Strengths and Weaknesses of Each?

10. 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

11. 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? (Z6) • 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 privelegeof quiet and open spaces for play • What are SCt’sAssuimptions re Apt. Complexes?

12. 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?

13. 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?

14. 3.05: This is a LochnerEra 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?

15. 3.05: This is a LochnerEra 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

16. 3.06: Zoning in Nectowis uncostitutionalas 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 Llmitationin Practice. Both facts very unusual. • Qs on Euclid/Nectow

17. Belle Terre (2010 Population = 792) & Paradise by the Dashboard Light

18. DQ3.07-3.09: 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?