- ABA Groups
- Resources for Lawyers
- About Us
MOST PEOPLE ARE ALERT FOR EVILDOERS WHO WANT TO PROFIT by exploit-ing others’ private account information. Concern about information privacy also arises in public discussions about government measures to monitor e-mail and Internet use. At the same time, modern Amer-ican culture seems to decry any restriction on citizen access to infor-mation that the government keeps. These modern concerns require law and policy makers to struggle with ﬁnding the proper boundary be-tween a free ﬂow of necessarily public information and space in which individuals have a justiﬁable expectation of privacy.
NEIGHBOR OPPOSITION TO LAND USE CHANGE is too often a deciding factor in local decision-making. The concern and input of neighbors affected by a proposed land use is an integral component of the zoning pro-cess;1 however, local legislators agreeing to the demands of vocal op-ponents to land use change provides an opportunity for irrational de-cision-making that courts should reject. This article addresses the question of whether, and when, courts can reject denials of land use change because a decision-making body relied improperly on neigh-borhood opposition as the basis for its decision.
THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT’S RECENT DECISION IN REED V.TOWN OF GILBERT, added yet another nuance to American constitutional ju-risprudence on free speech regulation. For almost a century, courts have construed the federal constitution’s broad provisions of the First Amendment prohibiting regulation of free speech by Congress, as limitations against state and local governments. The First Amend-ment has long been viewed as protecting political, religious, social, and artistic expression as core elements of free speech. Moreover, over the past ﬁfty years, the Supreme Court has also determined that the First Amendment applies to commercial speech, although in a manner different from that regarding the core elements of free speech, i.e., those relating to political, social and religious matters.
CALIFORNIA HAS LED THE NATION IN CREATING A UNIQUE TRI-PARTITE STATUTORY STRUTURE aimed at reducing global warming and greenhouse gas emissions by linking air quality, transportation, and sustainable land use through regional and local planning. The program implements three innovative and comprehensive statutes: Transit Village Development Planning Act, of 1994,2 as amended 2011 and 2017; Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32”);3 and Transportation Planning and Sustainable Communities Strategy (“SCS”) Act of 2008 (SB 375”).4 This article will demonstrate that this tri-partite innovative program has been only partially successful because it: (1) reﬂects the unwillingness of the state legislature to mandate that city and county plans and zoning must be consistent with the required regional SCS;(2) fails to incorporate strong growth management tiered growth pat-terns delineated by urban service area boundaries in order to direct growth to central cities and existing ﬁrst ring suburban inﬁll, thus pri-oritizing transportation corridor centers and walkable mixed use tradi-tional neighborhood development reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and (3) fails to provide for adequate state review of the SCS, because CARB cannot require changes to the methods by which the region pro-poses to reach the GHG reduction target.
THIS ARTICLE IS SUBMITTED BY THE LAND USE COMMITTEE’S SUBCOMMITTEE ON PLANNED COMMUNITIES.1 It contains contributions by subcommittee members that review a planned community in Ohio, recent cases on the review of planned communities, and a review of a report on planned communities by the Urban Land Institute.
AS OF MARCH 2017, TWENTY-EIGHT STATES HAVE ADOPTED STATUTES—and, in some instances, constitutional provisions—allowing the cultivation of marijuana for medical use,1 while eight states permit at least limited cultivation of marijuana for adult, nonmedical uses (hereinafter referred to as “recreational use”).2 Three additional states, Missouri, South Ca-rolina, and Texas, allow in-state cultivation of some form of cannabis for medical use.3 While all local governments in the United States have constitutional or statutory authority to regulate land uses within their jurisdictions, most of the existing state marijuana statutes include limits on that authority. This tension between state regulation and local land use regulatory authority differs from state to state. Some state stat-utes explicitly provide for either broad local authority to regulate mar-ijuana land uses or impose signiﬁcant constraints on that authority, while others restrict certain local regulatory options while otherwise preserving local authority to regulate land uses. Yet other state statutes are silent on the subject, but implicitly preempt local authority to some extent by imposing statewide land use restrictions.
FOR MANY YEARS NOW, THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SECTION ON STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT HAS REPORTED ON THE RELATIONSHIP OF COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING to land use regulations and actions. It is fair to say that there has been an increasing role of the plan in assessing the validity of those regulations and actions. In making this assess-ment, this report has divided judicial decisions regarding this relation-ship into three categories: 1) where the plan is not recognized as an independent criterion, 2) where the plan is a factor of some kind in that evaluation, and 3) where the plan is a constitution-like document, requiring conformity or consistency by those regulations or actions.
FROM THE TIME CONGRESS UNANIMOUSLY PASSED THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT (“RLUIPA”) IN 2000, in an effort to correct the constitutional inﬁrmities of the Religious Freedom Res-toration Act, RLUIPA has been constantly evolving. In 2016 and early 2017, the courts have further scrutinized RLUIPA addressing issues such as ripeness, standing, supplemental jurisdiction, land use regula-tions, substantial burden, equal terms, non-discrimination and attorney fees. Discussed below are some of the most important and inﬂuential developments that occurred during that period.
IN 2016, THE NUMBER OF UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS (UAS) ECLIPSED THE NUMBER OF AIRPLANES registered in the United States. Today, there are more than two registered UAS for each registered manned aircraft. UAS have become ubiquitous and could pose a very real threat to manned aircraft if there were a collision. “Unmanned aircraft including model aircraft, many pose a hazard to manned aircraft in ﬂight and to persons and property on the surface if not operated safely.” Aﬂock of geese cut the engines on Sully’s plane. “[D]rones are more like me-chanical geese from hell.” They are similar to rocks going through an engine that can leave “an engine blade deformed, broken, or completely fragmented” or even if the engine itself is unscathed, can cause it to be unbalanced and to ricochet inside its casing. Not only are engines at risk, tests have shown that upon contact with the nose of a plane, an UAS could become embedded and that the batteries inside UAS pose a real risk of “burst[ing] into ﬂames when damaged.”