Euclid v Ambler Realty Co' 272 U'S' 465 1926 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 22
About This Presentation
Title:

Euclid v Ambler Realty Co' 272 U'S' 465 1926

Description:

Federal Government promulgated the Standard State Zoning Enabling ... The same year as Euclid decision. Euclid adopting it's zoning ... was on the ascendancy ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:52
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 23
Provided by: jamescn
Learn more at: http://law.gsu.edu
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Euclid v Ambler Realty Co' 272 U'S' 465 1926


1
Euclid v Ambler Realty Co.272 U.S. 465 (1926)
  • Where it all began.

2
But everybodys doing it!
  • City of New York adopts zoning in 1915
  • Many cities followed New Yorks lead
  • Federal Government promulgated the Standard State
    Zoning Enabling Act (SSZEA) in 1926 . . . The
    same year as Euclid decision.
  • Euclid adopting its zoning code in 1922.
  • By that time 1922 there were hundreds of zoning
    codes, ordinances or resolutions.

3
Background
  • Euclid largely was a farming community in the
    1920s, but one that had become connected to
    Cleveland by inter-urban rail.
  • Euclid enacted its zoning code in 1922 with use 6
    districts
  • U-1, single family detached homes
  • U-2, U-1 plus duplex units
  • U-3, U-2 plus apartments
  • U-4, U-3 plus office commercial
  • U-5, U-4 plus warehouses and some manf.
  • U-6, U-5 plus all other industries.

4
  • This is termed cumulative or Euclidian
    zoning, meaning that . . .
  • All more restrictive uses are permitted in the
    less restricted area, so . . .
  • Single family is permitted in all 6 districts
  • Duplexes are permitted in 5 districts, U-2 thru
    U-6
  • Apartments are permitted in 4 districts, U-3 thru
    U-6
  • Office Commercial are permitted in 3 districts,
    U-4, U-5 U-6.
  • Limited manufacturing is permitted in 2
    districts, U-5 and U-6.
  • All other activities are only permitted in 1
    district, U-6.

5
Cumulative Zoning
6
The property . . . .
  • Ambler Realty Co. owned 68 acres of land in
    Euclid, Ohio.
  • Purchased in 1911.
  • Euclids zoning code would restrict the property
    to
  • Industrial development 60 or 41 acres
  • Apartments 6 or 4 acres
  • Duplex units 33 or 22 acres
  • Note, none of the property is single family

7
Configuration
N
?Rail Road to Cleveland
R D e e s v i e d l e o n p t e
i d a l
R D e e s v i e d l e o n p t e
i d a l
Industrial
Apartments
2 Family home
Euclid Avenue
1,800
8
Impact on the property owner
  • Land as industrial
  • 100,000 per acre (7/200 100)
  • Land as residential
  • 25,000 per acre (7/200 100)
  • Regulated land would be diminished 75 in value
  • Parcel would diminish in value 29 -- 1,950,000

9
The suit
  • 15 property owners joined together in brining the
    suit
  • Newton D. Baker, former Secretary of War and
    mayor of Cleveland represented the plaintiffs
    (heavy hitter)
  • This was a facial attack, arguing that the
    application of the ordinance would be wrong in
    every instance because it was a denial of due
    process.

10
Lower Court
  • District Judge David Westenhaven ruled, in
    January 1924, that the ordinance was an improper
    use of the Villages police powers and thus
    unconstitutional.

11
Appeal
  • City argued that zoning was a form of nuisance
    control and thus a reasonable exercise of the
    police power.
  • Plaintiff claimed that zoning deprived an owner
    of property without due process.

12
Opinion by Justice Sutherland
  • Justice George Sutherland, a conservative perhaps
    best known for his opposition to FDRs new
    deal.
  • He swung the court toward Euclid, accepting
    zoning as a legitimate means of addressing
    problems arising from the nations growth.

13
Sutherlands observation
  • Until recent years, urban life was comparatively
    simple
  • but with the great increase and concentration
    of population, problems have developed, and
    constantly are developing,
  • which require, and will continue to require,
    additional restrictions in respect of the use and
    occupation of private lands in urban
    communities.

14
Whats Southerland talking about?
  • Urban America was on the ascendancy
  • In the 1920 census 50 of nations population
    were in urbanized areas (2,500 persons or more)
  • The problems of urbanization where before
    society. Ignoring them was not option.
  • The only question was who would deal with them
    and under what legal theory.

15
No one disagreed . . .
  • The problems were present and someone was going
    to have to do something.
  • BUT . . .
  • Should the problems be dealt with on a case by
    case basis and on the basis of nuisance law OR .
    . .
  • Should communities be allowed to restrict
    activities in certain areas, presumably to
    prevent nuisances.

16
  • The ordinance under review . . . must find its
    justification is some aspect of the police
    powers.
  • A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the
    wrong place, like a pig in a parlor instead of in
    the barnyard.
  • If the validity of the legislative
    classification for zoning purposes be fairly
    debatable, the legislative judgment must be
    allowed to control.

17
And, whats more
  • Apartment houses are often mere parasites,
    taking advantage of the residential character
    created by surrounding single-family use. And,
    one apartment house is followed by another,
    creating noise, congestion, traffic until the
    residential character is utterly destroyed.

18
Exclusion of business will
  • Achieve . . .
  • Easier provision of fire apparatus
  • Increase safety and security of homelife
  • Prevent street accidents, especially to children
  • Reducing traffic
  • Reducing noise
  • Reducing other conditions that produce or
    intensify nervous disorders
  • Preserve a more favorable environment in which to
    raise children

19
  • . . .the exclusion of buildings devoted to
    business, trade, etc. from residential districts,
  • bears a rational relationship to the health
    and safety of the community.
  • Therefore the exclusion of buildings devoted to
    business, trade, etc. from residential districts
    would be an exercise of the police power to
    protect public health, safety etc.

20
Facial attack
  • Southerland We determine . . . that the
    ordinance in its general scope and dominant
    features, so far as its provisions are here
    involved, is a valid exercise of authority,
    leaving other provisions to be dealt with as
    cases arise directly involving them.
  • meaning that other provisions will be dealt
    with as they are applied in individual cases

21
The Denominator Issue Part I
  • The 68 acre site as Industrial or U6
  • 68 acres 100,000 6.8 Million
  • The 68 acre site as U-2, U-3 U-6
  • 42 acres 100,000 4.2 Million
  • 4 acres 25,000 0.1 Million
  • 22 acres 25,000 0.55 Million
  • 4.85 Million
  • Change -1.95 Million
  • -29

22
What is the extent of diminution?
  • Did the site diminish by 29 in value?
  • Did the regulated property diminish by 75 in
    value?
  • The answer to both is yes!
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com