Government Planning

Ambler Realty Company, an owner of land in Euclid village, sued the village claiming that zoning that had been introduced in the area reduced the value of the property as there were limitations on ways one could use the land and the resale value decreased. Since the land owned by Amber spanned across many districts in the village, the company was restricted in the types of buildings, it could construct, and as a result, the company filed a suit against the village for all the inconveniences. The company claimed that the village's action was in violation of their rights as in the constitution under the fourteenth amendment's protections of liberty and property. The court's final ruling by Justice Sutherland was that the damages being speculated by the company were not sufficient to oppose the actions of the village (Walsh, 2017). As a result, the case brought about constitutional issues that were in conflict with the case.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

When making the ruling, the court mainly applied the constitutional challenges to economic regulations. The court stated that zoning regulations were always upheld only when there was an issue with the public welfare. For instance, the nuisance laws were used to oppose the case against the village, which included noise, pollution, and disease (Serkin, 2018) by zoning the area the village argued that there would be no industrialization and misuse of land. The argument for zoning was that the restrictions would reduce misuse of land and therefore reduce pollution, which would then be in the best interest of the public.

The constitutional issues that conflicted were mainly those of private ownership and public welfare. The Ambler Company had bought 68 acres of land, and this was before the council of the village decided to zone the area. Since some of the land laid in regions where there were strict restrictions on land use, the company was unable to use the land as they would wish to, and it also reduced the property value. The action was somehow in violation of private landowners' constitutional rights since they are supposed to be allowed to do whatever they wish with their land since they are the owners.

The zoning had diminished the value to a quarter of its original value of their land, and therefore they had they were negatively impacted by the move (Geffner, 2017). Therefore, the company had the constitutional right to be against the zoning since the process harmed their company, yet there was no real danger posed to the public if the land was left free. They were denied their right to resell the property at the maximum possible value, which, as a result, deprived the company of making profits.

On the other hand, according to the Euclid council, there was the issue of public welfare; they saw the zoning fit since it was in favor of the public welfare. By doing so, there would be a reduction in nuisance, for instance, pollution and noise, which was in the public's best interest. The process of zoning the region would have therefore is in favor of the public, but at the same time, it would deny the private owners their rights. As a result, there arises a constitutional issue in the case.

References

Geffner, T. (2017). Land Use Zoning in America: The Case for Inclusionary Policy. Anthos, 8(1), 5. doi: 10.15760/anthos.2017.49

Serkin, C. (2018). Divergence in land use regulations and property rights. S. Cal. L. Rev., 92, 1055.

Walsh, E. (2017). Public versus private land use controls in England and the USA. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJLBE-09-2016-0013