{"title":"New Legislation","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394556","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394556","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “New Legislation” are abstracts of legislation enacted by the states addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as energy and environmental measures, subdivision and lot regulations, and powers of the planning commission.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"6 20","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131438129","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Hidden Agenda (?): Buckeye and Due Process Review of Land Use Decisions","authors":"P. Buchsbaum","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394551","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394551","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For those sensible states that do not allow land use referenda (approximately half of the total), City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation may seem to be someone else's problem. After all, in our calmer, saner jurisdictions (mainly in the East), we have, as a matter of state law, decided that land use referenda are an affront to good planning. In fact, the Buckeye facts themselves demonstrate the wisdom ultimately attained by the Ohio Supreme Court when it voided the referendum: it gets ugly when the electorate votes up or down on particular land use measures.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"72 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127004302","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Judicial Decisions","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394555","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394555","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115017621","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Fair Housing Act Case That Never Was","authors":"Anthony W. Cresap","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394553","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394553","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Buckeye decision will undoubtedly be a necessary reference for the practitioner confronting a referendum proposed by citizens opposed to an affordable housing facility. But Buckeye is a constitutional law case, not a Fair Housing Act (“FHA”) one. Many of us were looking forward to a new U.S. Supreme Court FHA decision. The Buckeye developer did not prosecute an FHA intentional discrimination claim and, as noted, abandoned its FHA claim about disparate impact (discriminatory effect).","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115520187","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Buckeye and Ballot Box Zoning: When Democracy is a Dangerous Thing","authors":"D. Callies","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394554","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394554","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract For the second time in a quarter of a century, the U.S. Supreme Court has reversed the Ohio Supreme Court in a ballot box zoning case. In the first, City of Eastlake v. Forest City Enterprises, the Court held that exercising the referendum power to return a parcel zoned multifamily by the Eastlake city council to its previous commercial classification was not a denial of due process by means of a standardless delegation of power from the state legislature to the people of Eastlake. This was because the people retained in the Ohio State Constitution the power to zone through the ballot box. So there was no delegation at all—standardless or otherwise. Twenty-seven years later, in City of Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Community Hope Foundation, the Court finds that a referendum on a specific project site plan likewise passes due process scrutiny: “The subjection of the site-plan ordinance to the City's referendum process, regardless of whether that ordinance reflected an administrative or legislative decision, did not constitute per se arbitrary government conduct in violation of due process.”","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122148727","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts: California's Experience with Hazard Mitigation through Special Purpose Districts","authors":"D. Curtin, Shawn J. Zovod","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394806","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394806","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This month, we feature two perspectives on the use of special purpose districts by California communities to mitigate landslides and other geologic hazards. Daniel Curtin, Jr. and Shawn Zovod have been involved in establishing many such districts, and advocate them as an important community tool in addressing those hazards. Sanjay Jeer, a senior researcher for APA, recognizes the potential usefulness of such districts, but takes a more cautionary view of when and where they can be effective. APA will publish a Planning Advisory Service Report by Mr. Jeer on “Landslide Hazards and Planning” later this summer.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115714046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Weighing the Benefits of GHADs","authors":"S. Jeer","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394807","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Hazard mitigation can take one or more of three forms: risk identification, risk reduction, and risk transfer. With respect to landslide hazards, risk identification involves mapping, surveying, testing soil stability, etc. Risk reduction can include either hard mitigation techniques—engineering solutions such as constructing retaining walls, drilling bores to drain excess water, reshaping the terrain for erosion and stormwater control, etc.—or soft mitigation techniques—using planning, zoning, and other regulatory techniques to keep development out of harm's way. Risk transfer techniques minimize losses by spreading the burden through such programs as insurance, disaster relief, and disclosure laws. These risk transfer mechanisms do not directly reduce the hazard but protect against financial losses, provide relief in the aftermath of a disaster, and provide information to buyers and sellers about the hazard so (public and private) investment decisions take the risk into consideration. Most mitigation strategies comprise elements of all three techniques, but their emphasis may favor one over the other and GHADs are no exception.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"28 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122680392","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Index","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394809","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"23 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133545871","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Judicial Decisions","authors":"","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394808","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394808","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract “Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129465522","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Wandering Far from Tahoe: Reflections on the Relevant Parcel Definition and Nuisance Defense in R.T.G., Inc. v. State of Ohio","authors":"T. Dowling","doi":"10.1080/00947598.2003.10394802","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/00947598.2003.10394802","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Those of us who represent planners and local officials in regulatory takings cases certainly expected the property rights movement to attempt to circumvent last year's landmark decision in Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 535 U.S. 302 (2002), 54 ZD 329. What we did not expect is for judges to ignore the ruling altogether.","PeriodicalId":154411,"journal":{"name":"Land Use Law & Zoning Digest","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130385952","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}