Wilde Case Summary

Decent Essays
Wilde V. City of Normal The new ordinance regulating short term rentals violates Ima Liddle Wilde right to due process, and right of contract protected under the 14th Amendment. Normal, Illinois’s city ordinance makes the historic 3 story Victorian property valueless, and resulted in a taking of her property violating the taking clause of the 5th amendment, while also violating her right to contract with fellow citizen. In Lucas V. South Carolina costal council of 1992, Justice Antonin Scalia delivers the court’s opinion stating “sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking…” (Lucas 1234).…show more content…
v. Parrish states “The constitution does not recognize an absolute and uncontrollable liberty” (Parrish 301) and that laws are required to safe guard the health, safety, and welfare of the people. If the city can show a clear benefits the ordinance will have on the community, then liberty of contract argument is not applicable to this case. In Muller v. Oregon (1908) in the opinion Justice Brewer states that the state can restrict a person’s right of contract without violating the 14th amendment provisions, and again mentioning that contracts are “not absolute and extending to all contracts”. (Oregon 298) In this case restrictions are only placed on rentals shorter than 30 days and requires the owner to reside in the house. Even with the limitations placed on Ms. Wilde the property still has value, such as selling the property or renting it longer than 30 days at a time. Justice Blackmun in dissenting in the Lucas case, states the “petitioner still can enjoy other attributes of ownership, such as the right to exclude others” (Lucas 1237). Because the property still has economic productivity, albeit with some regulation the ordinance does not invoke a taking. In Nolan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) the Essential Nexus was established, meaning a conditional permit may be constitutional if the owner is Page
Get Access