Exam (elaborations)
AUSP 201 Exam 2 Study Guide Exam 2024/2025 Questions With Completed & Verified Solutions.
- Course
- Institution
AUSP 201 Exam 2 Study Guide Exam 2024/2025 Questions With Completed & Verified Solutions.
[Show more]
Content preview
AUSP 201 Exam 2 Study GuideBasic Premise of the Legal Right to Regulate - ANS An enacted law is presumed to be legal
unless & until it's challenged.
Burden of Prove - ANS Historically on the property owner to prove regulation was
unconstitutional. Philosophical shift in past 20-30 yrs.
Police Power - ANS The right of government to regulate for the protection of the health, safety,
and welfare of society.
Enabling Statutes - ANS Legal authority delegated by the states to municipalities to enact local
land use laws and regulations, known as "Home Rule".
Strong Home Rule State - ANS Local gov't have great power to adopt land use regulations w/
certain legal constraints. Ex: NYS
Eminent Domain - ANS Gov't has the right to seize property for public use through
condemnation for fair market value.
5th Amendment - ANS "Takings" clause. "...Nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation."
14th Amendment - ANS "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property w/o due process
of law." Prevents irrational actions, including discriminatory actions by regulating entity. Allows
for judicial relief if a voluntary agreement can't be reached.
Litigative Issues of Eminent Domain - ANS -Definition of public use
-What is Fair Market Value?
Is it a legitimate application of eminent domain to accommodate a private development
initiative? - ANS -Berman vs Parker
-Kelo vs City of New London
Both cases challenging the use of it.
Berman* vs Parker - ANS -Poor neighborhood. City came in w/ plan to revitalize area. He didn't
want to give up land for revitalization.
-Findings: Eminent domain can be used to achieve an economic redevelopment objective, in
favor of city.
, Kelo* vs City of New London - ANS -City want to make working class neighborhood more
attractive (buy purchasing property to make condos). She & neighbors didn't want to sell
houses, as they lived there.
-Findings: can be used to achieve an economic development objective. Ruled in favor of city.
Hadacheck v. Sebastian - ANS Nuisance case testing legality of land use regulations. Set table
for Euclid vs Ambler.
Mining & brick factory in LA, manufacturing ops had to stop due to noise & air pollution. Ruling:
City had right to pass this law bc it met Legal Validity of Land Use Regulations
Land Use Regulations Likely to be Upheld If: - ANS -Executed for a valid public purpose
-Executed by due process of law
-Not discriminatory
-Not arbitrary
-Doesn't take away all property value w/o just compensation
Euclid vs. Ambler - ANS Upheld zoining as legitimate exercise of police power if it met 5 point
test.
Nexus Test - ANS Relationship between the problem & solution.
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission - ANS Can get permit to build fence if access-way to
beach is built on his land. Ruled in favor of him, nexus wasn't met.
Dolan v. City of Tigard - ANS Expansion of business allowed under condition: 15 ft easement
needed to connect trails for trail system.
Ruling: Nexus wasn't met.
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City - ANS Grand Central is a historical landmark.
PC wants to build new 50 sty office building. Supreme court ruled in favor of NYC, stating Grand
Central was making reasonable rate of return on their investment.
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission - ANS Purchased 2 lots w/ intent to build & sell
homes. Law stated his land was too small to build on. State worried about storm related issues.
Lot would lose value. Impact of law on individuals challenged, not law itself. Court ruled in favor
of owner bc he wasn't getting reasonable rate of return. State had to compensate him, sell
property, and house was built on 1 property.
Palazzolo v. Rhode Island - ANS Took property of 18 acres of land in difft levels. RI passed law
limiting development in certain areas prior to him purchasing it. He couldn't develop lower level
due to law. Claimed takings is occurring.
Supreme Court Ruling from Palazzolo v Rhode Island - ANS -Property owner has right to sue if
law predated purchase of property.
The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:
Guaranteed quality through customer reviews
Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.
Quick and easy check-out
You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.
Focus on what matters
Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!
Frequently asked questions
What do I get when I buy this document?
You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.
Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?
Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.
Who am I buying these notes from?
Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller LEWIS12. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.
Will I be stuck with a subscription?
No, you only buy these notes for $9.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.
Can Stuvia be trusted?
4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
77254 documents were sold in the last 30 days
Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now