Euclid v Ambler Realty Co.Euclid v Ambler Realty Co.272 U.S. 465272 U.S. 465 (1926)

Where it all began.Where it all began.

2

EuclidEuclid

3

EuclidEuclid

15 miles15 miles

4

But everybody’s doing it!But everybody’s doing it!

• City of New York adopts zoning in 1915City of New York adopts zoning in 1915

• Many cities followed New York’s leadMany cities followed New York’s lead

• Federal Government promulgated the Federal Government promulgated the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (SSZEA) in 1926 . . . The same year as (SSZEA) in 1926 . . . The same year as Euclid Euclid decision.decision.

• Euclid adopting it’s zoning code in 1922.Euclid adopting it’s zoning code in 1922.

• By that time [1922] there were hundreds of By that time [1922] there were hundreds of zoning codes, ordinances or resolutions.zoning codes, ordinances or resolutions.

5

BackgroundBackground

• Euclid largely was a farming community in Euclid largely was a farming community in the 1920’s, but one that had become the 1920’s, but one that had become connected to Cleveland by inter-urban rail.connected to Cleveland by inter-urban rail.

• Euclid enacted its zoning code in 1922 Euclid enacted its zoning code in 1922 with 6 use districts:with 6 use districts:– U-1, single family detached homesU-1, single family detached homes– U-2, U-1 plus duplex unitsU-2, U-1 plus duplex units– U-3, U-2 plus apartmentsU-3, U-2 plus apartments– U-4, U-3 plus office & commercialU-4, U-3 plus office & commercial– U-5, U-4 plus warehouses and some manf.U-5, U-4 plus warehouses and some manf.– U-6, U-5 plus all other industries.U-6, U-5 plus all other industries.

6

• This is termed “cumulative” or “Euclidian” zoning, meaning that . . .

• All more restrictive uses are permitted in the less restricted area, so . . .– Single family is permitted in all 6 districts– Duplexes are permitted in 5 districts, U-2 thru U-6– Apartments are permitted in 4 districts, U-3 thru U-6– Office & Commercial are permitted in 3 districts, U-4,

U-5 & U-6.– Limited manufacturing is permitted in 2 districts, U-5

and U-6.– All other activities are only permitted in 1 district, U-6.

7

Cumulative Zoning

  Land Use / Land Use / DistrictDistrict U - 1 U - 1  U - 2 U - 2  U - 3 U - 3  U - 4 U - 4  U - 5 U - 5  U - 6 U - 6 

Single Family Single Family            

  DuplexDuplex           

Apartments Apartments            

  Office & Office & CommercialCommercial            

Light Light Manufacturing Manufacturing             

Unrestricted Unrestricted            

8

The property . . . .The property . . . .

• Ambler Realty Co. owned 68 acres of land Ambler Realty Co. owned 68 acres of land in Euclid, Ohio.in Euclid, Ohio.

• Purchased in 1911.Purchased in 1911.

• Euclid’s zoning code would restrict the Euclid’s zoning code would restrict the property to:property to:– Industrial development – 60% or 41 acresIndustrial development – 60% or 41 acres– Apartments – 6% or 4 acresApartments – 6% or 4 acres– Duplex units – 33% or 22 acresDuplex units – 33% or 22 acres

• Note, none of the property is single family

9

ConfigurationConfiguration

IndustrialIndustrial

ApartmentsApartments

2 Family home2 Family home

←←Rail Road to ClevelandRail Road to Cleveland RRD eD ee se sv iv ie d e d l el eo no np tp te ie id ad a ll

RRD eD ee se sv iv ie d e d l el eo no np tp te ie id ad a ll

Euclid AvenueEuclid Avenue

1,800’1,800’

NN

10

Impact on the property owner

• Land as industrialLand as industrial$100,000 per acre (7/2002 = 100)$100,000 per acre (7/2002 = 100)

• Land as residentialLand as residential$25,000 per acre (7/2002 = 100)$25,000 per acre (7/2002 = 100)

• Regulated land would be diminished 75% Regulated land would be diminished 75% in valuein value

• Parcel would diminish in value 29% -- Parcel would diminish in value 29% -- $1,950,000$1,950,000

11

The suitThe suit• 15 property owners joined together in 15 property owners joined together in

brining the suitbrining the suit

• Newton D. Baker, former Secretary of War Newton D. Baker, former Secretary of War and mayor of Cleveland represented the and mayor of Cleveland represented the plaintiffs (heavy hitter)plaintiffs (heavy hitter)

• This was a facial attack, arguing that the This was a facial attack, arguing that the application of the ordinance would be application of the ordinance would be wrong in every instance because it was a wrong in every instance because it was a denial of due process. denial of due process.

12

Lower Court

• District Judge David Westenhaven ruled, District Judge David Westenhaven ruled, in January 1924, that the ordinance was in January 1924, that the ordinance was an improper use of the Village’s police an improper use of the Village’s police powers and thus unconstitutional.powers and thus unconstitutional.

13

Appeal

• City argued that zoning was a form of City argued that zoning was a form of nuisance control and thus a reasonable nuisance control and thus a reasonable exercise of the police power.exercise of the police power.

• Plaintiff claimed that zoning deprived an Plaintiff claimed that zoning deprived an owner of property without due process.owner of property without due process.

14

Opinion by Justice SutherlandOpinion by Justice Sutherland

• Justice George Sutherland, Justice George Sutherland, a conservative perhaps best a conservative perhaps best known for his opposition to known for his opposition to FDR’s “new deal.”FDR’s “new deal.”

• He swung the court toward He swung the court toward Euclid, accepting zoning as Euclid, accepting zoning as a legitimate means of a legitimate means of addressing problems arising addressing problems arising from the nation’s growth.from the nation’s growth.

15

Sutherland’s observation• ““Until recent years, urban life was Until recent years, urban life was

comparatively simple;comparatively simple;

but with the great increase and but with the great increase and concentration of population, problems concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are have developed, and constantly are developing, developing,

which require, and will continue to require, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in urban and occupation of private lands in urban communities.” communities.”

16

What’s Southerland talking about?What’s Southerland talking about?

• Urban America was on the ascendancyUrban America was on the ascendancy• In the 1920 census 50% of nation’s In the 1920 census 50% of nation’s

population were in urbanized areas (2,500 population were in urbanized areas (2,500 persons or more)persons or more)

• The problems of urbanization where The problems of urbanization where before society. Ignoring them was not before society. Ignoring them was not option.option.

• The only question was who would deal The only question was who would deal with them and under what legal theory.with them and under what legal theory.

17Solid waste disposal in New YorkSolid waste disposal in New York

18

19

Chicago traffic -- 1906Chicago traffic -- 1906

20

South Chicago – about 1900South Chicago – about 1900

21Gerry, Indiana early 20Gerry, Indiana early 20thth

22

No one disagreed . . .No one disagreed . . .

• The problems were present and someone The problems were present and someone was going to have to do something. was going to have to do something.

• BUT . . .BUT . . .– Should the problems be dealt with on a case Should the problems be dealt with on a case

by case basis and on the basis of nuisance by case basis and on the basis of nuisance law OR . . .law OR . . .

– Should communities be allowed to restrict Should communities be allowed to restrict activities in certain areas, presumably to activities in certain areas, presumably to prevent nuisances.prevent nuisances.

23

• ““The ordinance under review . . . must find [its] The ordinance under review . . . must find [its] justification is some aspect of the police justification is some aspect of the police powers.”powers.”

• ““A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the

wrong place, like a pig in a parlor instead of in wrong place, like a pig in a parlor instead of in the barnyard.”the barnyard.”

• ““If the validity of the legislative classification for If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be zoning purposes be fairly debatablefairly debatable, the , the legislative judgment must be allowed to control.”legislative judgment must be allowed to control.”

So keeping the pig out of the parlor So keeping the pig out of the parlor would be a reasonable thing to do, would be a reasonable thing to do, as distinct from allowing the pig in, as distinct from allowing the pig in, and then ejecting it when it acted and then ejecting it when it acted like a pig.like a pig.

24

And, what’s more

• ““Apartment houses are often mere Apartment houses are often mere parasites, taking advantage of the parasites, taking advantage of the residential character created by residential character created by surrounding single-family use. And, one surrounding single-family use. And, one apartment house is followed by another, apartment house is followed by another, creating noise, congestion, traffic until the creating noise, congestion, traffic until the residential character is utterly destroyed.”residential character is utterly destroyed.”

25

Exclusion of business will

• Achieve . . .• Easier provision of fire apparatus• Increase safety and security of homelife• Prevent street accidents, especially to children• Reducing traffic• Reducing noise• Reducing other conditions that produce or intensify

nervous disorders• Preserve a more favorable environment in which to

raise children

26

• ““. . .the exclusion of buildings devoted to . . .the exclusion of buildings devoted to business, trade, etc. from residential districts,business, trade, etc. from residential districts,

bears a bears a rational relationshiprational relationship to the health and to the health and safety of the community.”safety of the community.”

• Therefore the exclusion of buildings devoted Therefore the exclusion of buildings devoted to business, trade, etc. from residential to business, trade, etc. from residential districts would be an exercise of the police districts would be an exercise of the police power to protect public health, safety etc.power to protect public health, safety etc.

27

Facial attack• Southerland – “[We] determine . . . that the Southerland – “[We] determine . . . that the

ordinance in its general scope and dominant ordinance in its general scope and dominant features, so far as its provisions are here features, so far as its provisions are here involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise directly involving them.directly involving them.

• [meaning that “other provisions” will be dealt with [meaning that “other provisions” will be dealt with as they are applied in individual cases]as they are applied in individual cases]

28

The rest of the storyThe rest of the story• The Ambler site remained vacant until The Ambler site remained vacant until

World War II, when it was rezoned by the World War II, when it was rezoned by the city to industrial as a site for a General city to industrial as a site for a General Motors aircraft plant.Motors aircraft plant.

• After the war GM used it as a Fisher body After the war GM used it as a Fisher body plant, assembling Cadillac bodies.plant, assembling Cadillac bodies.

• In 1994 GM closed the plant – permanentlyIn 1994 GM closed the plant – permanently

• In 1996 the site sold for $3 million [$44,000 In 1996 the site sold for $3 million [$44,000 per acre] and is now available for rent.per acre] and is now available for rent.

29

The Denominator Issue Part I• The 68 acre site as Industrial or U–6:

– 68 acres * $100,000 = $6.8 Million

• The 68 acre site as U-2, U-3 & U-6:– 42 acres * $100,000 = $4.2 Million– 4 acres * $25,000 = 0.1 Million– 22 acres * $25,000 = 0.55 Million

$4.85 Million– Change -$1.95 Million

-29%

30

What is the extent of diminution?

• Did the site diminish by 29% in value?

• Did the regulated property diminish by 75% in value?

• The answer to both is yes!

• Which is the relevant measure of harm?

31