CASE QUESTIONS: ZONING, GOVERNMENT TAKINGS, AND ENVIRONMENTAL
REGULATION
Moretco, Inc. v. Plaquemines Parish Council, 112 So.3d 287 (La. App. 2013); cert.denied, 118
So.3d 376 (La. 2013).
1. Explain the sequence of events that led to the litigation.
Moretco, Inc. (Moretco) wanted to develop Plaquemines Parish territory. The Plaquemines
Parish Council denied Moretco's development permission.Moretco appealed to the Plaquemines
Parish Board of Adjustments (the Board), which confirmed the Council's decision. Moretco sued
the Council and Board in Louisiana District Court, alleging arbitrary and capricious permission
refusal. The District Court sided with the Council and Board; therefore, Moretco appealed to the
Louisiana Court of Appeals.
2. What issues does Moretco raise in its appeal?
It was a decision that was both arbitrary and capricious on the part of the Council to refuse the
development permission.
The decision of the Board to sustain the refusal made by the Council was as arbitrary and
capricious as it was arbitrary.
With its decision to rule in favor of the Council and the Board, the District Court made a
mistake.
3. Explain the dissent’s argument.
The Council and the Board had reasonable grounds for refusing the development permission,
including concerns about the effect on the environment and compliance with zoning restrictions,
among other things. Because the Council and Board's choices were not arbitrary or capricious,
the District Court made the appropriate decision to defer them.
4. Offer Moretco some advice on the development process.
Before filing an application for a development permit, Moretco should make sure that they have
a complete understanding of the local zoning restrictions as well as the environmental laws.
communicate with local authorities: Moretco ought to communicate with the council and the
board at an early stage in the development process to comprehend their issues and address them
in a proactive manner. Moretco ought to give serious consideration to the possibility of retaining
legal counsel who is knowledgeable in the areas of land use and zoning law in order to provide
assistance with the development process and any potential litigation.
Yoder v. City of Bowling Green, 2019 WL 415254 (N.D. Ohio 2019).
1. Explain the concerns the city had in passing the ordinance on non-family living together.
Concerns about City Passing Non-Family Living Together Ordinance
Bowling Green restricted unrelated persons in single-family homes. These key considerations
prompted this ordinance.
Preservation of Residential Character: The city intended to preserve communities' residential
character, which huge gatherings of unrelated people may disturb.
Control of Noise and Nuisance: Large gatherings of unconnected people, especially students,
often caused noise, trash, and other nuisances.
Safety and Health: Overcrowding can cause health problems and unhealthy living conditions.
2. Why does the court find that the ordinance is unconstitutional?
The court declared the ordinance unlawful because: Equal Protection: The ordinance violated the
Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause.
It prohibited unrelated people from living together but allowed limitless related people to do so.
The city failed to justify the ordinance; the court ruled.
The city's concerns may be handled without violating unrelated people's freedom to live together.
Suggestion for Frat-House Regulation The city might have targeted frat-house regulation. Instead
of banning non-family housing, the city could: Enforce Noise and Nuisance Rules:
Strict enforcement of noise, trash, and other nuisance rules might solve many of the city's
problems.
3. What approach should the city have taken on regulating the frat-house problem?
The city might have targeted frat-house regulation. Instead of banning non-family housing, the
city could: Enforce Noise and Nuisance Rules: Strict enforcement of noise, trash, and other
nuisance rules might solve many of the city's problems. Implement Occupancy Limitations
Based on Housing Size: Instead of familial status, the city might impose occupancy limitations
based on dwelling size and capacity. Create Special Zoning for Student Housing: The city might
create special zoning for student housing to concentrate and control concerns related to large
student groups.
Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)
1. What is the main difference between the facts from this case and a case in which property
is taken for a freeway?
New London, Connecticut, seized private land to sell to developers via eminent domain. The city
said developing the site would boost tax revenue and employment. Kelo and other confiscated
property owners sued New London in state court. The property owners claimed the city violated
the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause, which prohibits unjust government taking of private
property for public purposes. Kelo and other property owners said selling private property to
private developers was not a public purpose. Issue.
2. What is the Dissent’s concern about the majority decision?
Although the plan had a reasonable public purpose, the dissenting judges deemed the takings
unlawful as the city failed to demonstrate their ability to meet the aims.
3. Why does the majority state that the courts should be reluctant to get involved in local
government eminent domain activities?
Due to the fact that it is the responsibility of the local legislature, and not the courts, to assess
what would be beneficial to the general public.
Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs v. the Inclusive Communities Project, Inc., 135
S.Ct. 2507 (2015).
1. Explain the Texas program for tax credits and what was happening statistically as a
result.
Developers that rented part of their property to low-income tenants received tax credits from the
Texas Department of Housing and Community Affairs (TDHCA). The tax credits were awarded
using a point system that weighed project financial viability and tenant revenue.
Statistics showed that disproportionately black inner-city properties received more tax credits
than predominantly white suburban houses. The concentration of low-income housing in
minority communities perpetuated racial segregation.
2. Discuss the burden of proof issues for disparate impact cases.
.
When a matter has disproportionate impacts, the plaintiff is first responsible for bearing the
burden of proof. They are required to provide evidence that a certain policy or practice has a
discriminatory impact on a group that is protected from discrimination. The statistical analysis
method is often utilized to do this.
In the event that the plaintiff is able to effectively establish a disproportionate impact, the burden
of evidence will immediately shift to the defendant. Next, they are required to present a valid and
non-discriminatory justification for the policy or practice in question. In the event that the
defendant is able to do this, the onus of demonstrating that the defendant's justification is nothing
more than a pretext for discriminating will be placed on the plaintiff.
3. What point does Justice Alito make with the rat example?
Justice Alito demonstrated discriminatory impact with a rat. He believed that a city would
eradicate rats in an area with a high rat infestation that was predominantly racial minorities. This
might lead to a disparate effect argument, even if the city wanted to enhance public health, not
discriminate. Alito argued that well-intentioned rules might cause disparate effect allegations and
that statistical disparities do not indicate discrimination.
Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, 515 U.S. 687(1995).
1. Is habitat modification harming endangered species?
In Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon, the Supreme Court
found that habitat alteration that harms endangered species violates the ESA.
The Case
The Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great Oregon sued Bruce Babbitt, the Interior
Secretary. The plaintiffs claimed that the Secretary's ESA interpretation, which included habitat
change as "harm,"J was excessively wide.
The Decision
The Supreme Court sided with Babbitt and upheld the Secretary's ESA interpretation. A court
ruled that habitat alteration that harms or kills endangered species is "harm.".
Implications
This verdict affects land use and development. The ESA allows legal action against habitat
modifications that affect endangered species.
A simple case summary:
All parties involved in the case Ruling: The Sweet Home Chapter of Communities for a Great
Oregon argued that interpreting "harm" as habitat change was too broad. Lost case
Bruce Babbitt (Interior Secretary) defended the definition of "harm" to encompass habitat
change. Won case
In conclusion, the Supreme Court's opinion in Babbitt v. Sweet Home Chapter of Communities
for a Great Oregon confirms that habitat alteration harming endangered species is an Endangered
Species Act violation.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
