|
|
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980)
Agins v. City of Tiburon No. 79-602 Argued April 15, 1980 Decided June 10, 1980 447 U.S. 255
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
After appellants had acquired five acres of unimproved land in appellee city for residential development, the city was required by California law to prepare a general plan governing land use and the development of open-space land. In response, the city adopted zoning ordinances that placed appellants’ property in a zone in which property may be devoted to one-family dwellings, accessory buildings, and open-space uses, with density restrictions permitting appellants to build between one and five single-family residences on their tract. Without having sought approval for development of their tract under the ordinances, appellants brought suit against the city in state court, alleging that the city had taken their property without just compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and seeking, inter alia, a declaration that the zoning ordinances were facially unconstitutional. The city’s demurrer claiming that the complaint failed to state a cause of action was sustained by the trial court, and the California Supreme Court affirmed.
Held: The zoning ordinances, on their face, do not take appellants’ property without just compensation. Pp. 260-263.
(a) The ordinances substantially advance the legitimate governmental goal of discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion of open-space land to urban uses and are proper exercises of the city’s police power to protect its residents from the ill effects of urbanization. Pp. 261-262.
(b) Appellants will share with other owners the benefits and burdens of the city’s exercise of such police power, and, in assessing the fairness of the ordinances, these benefits must be considered along with any diminution in market value that appellants might suffer. P. 262.
(c) Although the ordinances limit development, they neither prevent the best use of appellants’ land nor extinguish a fundamental attribute of ownership. Since, at this juncture, appellants are free to pursue their reasonable investment expectations by submitting a development plan to the city, it cannot be said that the impact of the ordinances has denied them the "justice and fairness" guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Pp. 262-263.
24 Cal.3d 266, 598 P.2d 25, affirmed.
POWELL, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) in 447 U.S. 255 447 U.S. 257. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FFRTCGKQ3D7DWL2.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980), in 447 U.S. 255, page 447 U.S. 257. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FFRTCGKQ3D7DWL2.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980). cited in 1980, 447 U.S. 255, pp.447 U.S. 257. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=FFRTCGKQ3D7DWL2.
|