About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


51 Case W. Res. L. Rev. 617 (2000-2001)
The Emergence of Private Land Use Controls in Large-Scale Subdivisions: The Companion Story to Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.

handle is hein.journals/cwrlrv51 and id is 627 raw text is: THE EMERGENCE OF PRIVATE LAND USE CONTROLS IN LARGE-SCALE SUBDIVISIONS: THE COMPANION STORY TO VILLAGE OF EUCLID V. AMBLER REALTY Co. Gerald Korngoldt INTRODUCTION The milestone Supreme Court decision in Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.' in 1926, validating comprehensive public land use controls, has had a profound effect on American life and jurispru- dence. The decision provided the constitutional foundation for an explosive growth in modem zoning, subdivision controls, and other governmental land use regulation that has transformed the organiza- tion and development of land and communities.2 Euclid also trig- gered a new era of takings jurisprudence3 and an ongoing debate on American private property rights. © Copyright 2001 Gerald Komgold t Dean and Everett D. and Eugenia S. McCurdy Professor of Law. The author expresses his appreciation to Erin Peterson, Case Western Reserve University School of Law Class of 2001, for her able research assistance. ' 272 U.S. 365 (1926). 2 For a history of this regulation, see generally ROBERT M. ANDERSON, AMERICAN LAW OF ZONING (3d ed. 1986); NORMAN WILLIAMS, AMERICAN PLANNING LAW: LAND USE AND THE POLICE POWER (1974-1985). 3 See, e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1030 (1992) (hold- ing that an owner of beachfront property was denied all economically viable use of his land by the Beachfront Management Act, amounting to a regulatory taking); Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987) (finding a taking where a building permit was condi- tioned on the property owner's granting of a public access easement because no legitimate pur- pose was thereby advanced); Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (upholding a New York landmark law that prevented property owner from building onto a landmark because the law was substantially related to the promotion of the general welfare). 4 See, e.g., RICHARD EPSTEIN, TAKINGS (1985); Frank Michelman, Takings, 1987, 88 COLUM. L REV. 1600 (1988); Frank Michelman, Property, Utility, and Fairness: Comments on the Ethical Foundations of Just Compensation Law, 80 HARV. L. REv. 1165 (1967); Marga- ret Jane Radin, The Liberal Conception of Property: Cross Currents in the Jurisprudence of Takings, 88 COLUM. L. REv. 1667 (1988); Joseph L. Sax, Property Rights and the Economy of 617