Board Of County Vs Snyder Case Analysis

The Court rebutted with the fact that economic development is a recognized public use, and that sometimes the greatest benefit for the public is to have the land developed by an agency other than a government agency (Kelo v. New London, 2005). The Petitioner's countered that without such a “bright-line” rule a government could take private land and transfer it to someone else who would put the property to more use and therefore increase the tax revenue of the property. The Court argued that may be true in cases where there was no clear development plan, but in this case the City had developed an integrated development plan (Kelo v. New London, 2005). Finally, the Petitioner’s argued that if a government was going to exercise eminent domain that the public should be guaranteed with some “reasonable certainty” that the proposed benefits would in fact come to pass. For this the Court refused to speculate to the effectiveness of the City’s plan, and argued that once the Court had determined if an economic development plan was a “public use” as laid out in the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment, that their job was complete (Kelo v. New London,

Residents of the land, now “condemned” challenged the City’s authority. When the Supreme Court decided Kelo, it began of an evolving set of tensions across the United States over defining “public use.” Many state legislatures banned eminent domain for economic development or several other specific authorized public uses. (A&M)

Why would the Supreme Court have say in something that only pertains to local and state governments though; it should be something dealt with on that level. The reason is because property owners starting fighting back and in a 1954 Supreme Court decision in Berman v. Parker, the Supreme Court “upheld that it is within the government’s power to use eminent domain to ensure the community is not only healthy, clean, and well patrolled, but that it is beautiful, spacious, and well balanced.” (Legal) The reason why people started fighting back was simple, these government entities started taking land and using words such as creating and upkeep of such necessary infrastructure as roads and highways, parks, and public buildings, as well as water, power, and gas lines. The governments were claiming that they were using this eminent domain for “urban renewal, replacement of deteriorated housing with new low-cost housing, and beautification of public areas.” (Legal) The term public use was loosely being used to be construed for whatever the entity needed the land for, construed that it was in the public’s interest and for the betterment of the public’s

3) On what basis could County argue that it is conforming with the criterion at 1715(3)? On what basis could the state agency argue that County's application in nonconforming with the criterion? In your opinion, which side has the more persuasive argument? Why?

This case crossed the supreme court during the Warren burger court. Arthur Gochman and charles Wright argued for the appellees and the appellant respectively. It was decided on March 21, 1973

The local government may be aggrieved entitling it to appeal a decision from its own board of adjustment. The same is true of officers in the local government charged with supervision of the ordinance who believe the government made an error. In the Township of North Brunswick v. Zoning Board of Adjustment of the Township of North Brunswick and Kaplan Companies case, Kaplan Companies wanted to build a four-story luxury apartment building with 85-units for senior citizens in North Brunswick Township’s R-2 Zone. The building would be constructed on a plot of 3.66 acre land located along the side of a collector highway. According to North Brunswick Township’s Master Plan, only detached single-family houses of no more than thirty feet in height were permitted to be constructed in the township’s R-2 zones and no more than 2.9 houses could be built on each acre of land. In 2003, the Zoning Board granted Kaplan Companies the right to construct the building, believing that the new residence suited the location, but North Brunswick Township believed that the zoning board of adjustment completely ignored the zoning history of this land. North Brunswick Township sued zoning board and Kaplan companies. The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division held that the zoning board had assumed North Brunswick’s zoning authority by granting variance for building that exceeded limitations in a residential zone. The Zoning Board’s action had the effect of rejecting North Brunswick

For example, Historic zoning by the cities is authorized by the state statute for the control of the historic property, including regulation of appearance of neighboring private property. In Bohannon v. City of San Diego, 30 Cal. App. 416, 106 Cal. Rptr. 333 (1973), the appellate court upheld these statues and the ordinances they authorized as a permissible exercise of the police power. When one is seeking to secure adoption of historic preservation ordinance, it is recommended to obtain support of the property owner or at least educate them about the possible advantages of such

It is within the powers of Congress to make amendments to the constitution. In response to the 1973 rulings, Congress did the Eleventh Amendment which in itself overrode the court decisions.

Representatives of the project were asking the commission to grant several special exceptions to zoning rules, including the three-story limit for their four-story schematics. Multiple residents argued that the proposed building would change the character of their neighborhood, which consists primarily of single family homes.

| Zoning laws have the greatest impact on which "Right" in the Bundle of Rights?

City governments are tasked with writing and enforcing zoning laws that define all aspects of private use of property within the city’s district. In order for businesses and other groups to build and use plots, or zones, of land that they own within the city’s district, they must get approval from various city government officials. Failure to meet zoning requirements for the specific use proposed, as interpreted by certain officials, results in denial of the entity from using their land for that purpose. On March 22nd, I attended a meeting of the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (PC). The meeting concerned approving group’s proposed usage of property they own. Specifically, I will write about the Other Side Academy’s (OSA) proposal to build

Land-use planning: The preparation of an overall master plan for future development of an area; the plan may recommend zoning restrictions and infrastructure both practical and appropriate for the community and its natural environment; based on mapping and classification of existing human activities and environmental conditions, including natural hazards.

The decision said in part, “On the merits, plaintiffs argue as their principal contention that

Mr. Mosley reported this agenda item is linked to the rezoning request agenda #11 that concerns the same property and applicant. The Planning Commission should consider changing the Future Land Use Map of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan before the rezoning in agenda #11 is reviewed.

As I watched the news in television, listened to issues in radio, and read some newspapers for recent reports nationally and globally, one of the headlines in The Charlotte Observer captured my attention. I have read an article news in The Charlotte Observer; apparently, one of the most frequently expressed concern is about the "Big changes coming to Charlotte's zoning process code." The Charlotte's zoning code and process is one of the biggest and most talked about topic in town. As the The Charlotte Observer mentioned on its article, zoning is one of the city's fundamental regulations. It is a process of managing how properties in specific geographic zones can be used; additionally, zoning regulations are determining whether an apartment complex, housing,