Nectow v Cambridge 277 U.S. 183 (1928)

1. Nectow v Cambridge277 U.S. 183 (1928) The other shoe drops.

6. Henry St

7. The Property Residential Henry Street 100’ 264’ 65’ Residential Brookline Street Unrestricted Property Unrestricted Property 305’ Residential Unrestricted Property Ford Motor Company

8. The facts • City of Cambridge zoned – maintained the existing use of – the western portion of a larger tract in southern Cambridge. • Property joins Ford Motor assembly plant. • After City widens Brookline Street, residential parcel will be only 65’ wide.

9. Impact on owner • Nectow had a contract to sell the entire 3.3 acre tract for $63,000 – $650,000 in 2002. • This is $200,000 per acre (2002). • Contract revoked because of residential zoning on the subject 0.75 acre part of the tract. • No information as to what the property would be worth as residential.

10. Southerland II • This is the sequel to Euclid. • Nectow is an as applied attack on the application of Cambridge’s zoning ordinance to plaintiff’s land – or a part of plaintiff’s land.

11. “An inspection of a plat of the city upon which the zoning districts are outlined, taken in connection with the master's findings, shows with reasonable certainty that the inclusion of the locus in question is not indispensable to the general plan.

12. Look at Cambridge’s zoning map

13. “An inspection of a plat of the city upon which the zoning districts are outlined, taken in connection with the master's findings, shows with reasonable certainty that the inclusion of the locus in question is not indispensable to the general plan. The boundary line of the residential district before reaching the locus runs for some distance along the streets, and to exclude the locus from the residential district requires only that such line shall be continued 100 feet further along Henry street and thence south along Brookline street.”

14. “There does not appear to be any reason why this should not be done.” • “Nevertheless, if that were all, we should not be warranted in substituting our judgment for that of the zoning authorities primarily charged with the duty and responsibility of determining the question.” Here Southerland is raising a point that will be a Scalia theme on land use matters when he reaches the Court

15. “That the invasion of the property of plaintiff . . . was serious and highly injurious is clearly established; and, since a necessary basis for the support of that invasion is wanting, the action of the zoning authorities comes within the ban of the Fourteenth Amendment and cannot be sustained.”

16. “But that is not all.” • “The governmental power to interfere by zoning regulations with the general rights of the land owner by restricting the character of his use, is not unlimited, and other questions aside, • such restriction cannot be imposed if it does not bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”

17. No substantial relation to H. S & W Residential Henry Street Residential Brookline Street Unrestricted Property Unrestricted Property Residential Unrestricted Property Ford Motor Company

18. The Denominator Issue Part II • The 3.3 acre site as Industrial: • 3.3 acres * $196,970 = $650,000 • The 3.3 acre site as zoned: • 2.56 acres * $196,970 = $504,242 • 0.75 acres * nil = ___0___ $504,242 • Change -$145,758 -22%

19. What is the extent of diminution? • Did the site diminish by 22% in value? • Did the regulated property diminish by 100% in value? • The answer to both is yes!