Euclid v Ambler Realty Co.
272 U.S. 465 (1926)
Where it all began.
Euclid
2
Euclid
15 miles
3
But everybody’s doing it!
• City of New York adopts zoning in 1915
• Many cities followed New York’s lead
• Federal Government promulgated the
Standard State Zoning Enabling Act
(SSZEA) in 1926 . . . The same year as
Euclid decision.
• Euclid adopting it’s zoning code in 1922.
• By that time [1922] there were hundreds of
zoning codes, ordinances or resolutions. 4
Background
• Euclid largely was a farming community in
the 1920’s, but one that had become
connected to Cleveland by inter-urban rail.
• Euclid enacted its zoning code in 1922
with 6 use districts:
– U-1, single family detached homes
– U-2, U-1 plus duplex units
– U-3, U-2 plus apartments
– U-4, U-3 plus office & commercial
– U-5, U-4 plus warehouses and some manf.
– U-6, U-5 plus all other industries.
5
• 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.
6
Cumulative Zoning
Land Use /
District
U-1
U-2
U-3
U-4
U-5
U-6
Single Family
Duplex
Apartments
Office &
Commercial
Light
Manufacturing
Unrestricted
7
The property . . . .
• Ambler Realty Co. owned 68 acres of land
in Euclid, Ohio.
• Purchased in 1911.
• Euclid’s zoning code would restrict the
property to:
– Industrial development – 60% or 41 acres
– Apartments – 6% or 4 acres
– Duplex units – 33% or 22 acres
• Note, none of the property is single family
8
Configuration
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
R ←Rail Road to Cleveland
e
s
Industrial
i
d
Apartments
e
n
2 Family home
t
i
Euclid Avenue
a
1,800’
l
N
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
d
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
9
Impact on the property owner
• Land as industrial
$100,000 per acre (7/2002 = 100)
• Land as residential
$25,000 per acre (7/2002 = 100)
• Regulated land would be diminished 75%
in value
• Parcel would diminish in value 29% -$1,950,000
10
The suit
• 15 property owners joined together in
brining the suit
• Newton D. Baker, former Secretary of War
and mayor of Cleveland represented the
plaintiffs (heavy hitter)
• This was a facial attack, arguing that the
application of the ordinance would be
wrong in every instance because it was a
denial of due process.
11
Lower Court
• District Judge David Westenhaven ruled,
in January 1924, that the ordinance was
an improper use of the Village’s police
powers and thus unconstitutional.
12
Appeal
• City argued that zoning was a form of
nuisance control and thus a reasonable
exercise of the police power.
• Plaintiff claimed that zoning deprived an
owner of property without due process.
13
Opinion by Justice Sutherland
• Justice George Sutherland,
a conservative perhaps best
known for his opposition to
FDR’s “new deal.”
• He swung the court toward
Euclid, accepting zoning as
a legitimate means of
addressing problems arising
from the nation’s growth.
14
Sutherland’s observation
• “Until recent years, urban life was
comparatively simple;
but with the great increase and
concentration of population, problems
have developed, and constantly are
developing,
which require, and will continue to require,
additional restrictions in respect of the use
and occupation of private lands in urban
communities.”
15
What’s Southerland talking about?
• Urban America was on the ascendancy
• In the 1920 census 50% of nation’s
population were in urbanized areas (2,500
persons or more)
• The problems of urbanization where
before society. Ignoring them was not
option.
• The only question was who would deal
with them and under what legal theory.
16
Solid waste disposal in New York
17
18
Chicago traffic -- 1906
19
South Chicago – about 1900
20
Gerry, Indiana early 20th
21
No one disagreed . . .
• The problems were present and someone
was going to have to do something.
• BUT . . .
– Should the problems be dealt with on a case
by case basis and on the basis of nuisance
law OR . . .
– Should communities be allowed to restrict
activities in certain areas, presumably to
prevent nuisances.
22
• “The ordinance under review . . . must find [its]
justification is some aspect of the police
powers.”
• “A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the
wrong place, like a pig in a parlor instead of in
the barnyard.”
So keeping the pig out of the parlor
• “If the validity
of thebe
legislative
classification
would
a reasonable
thing for
to do,
zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the
as distinct from allowing the pig in,
legislative judgment must be allowed to control.”
and then ejecting it when it acted
like a pig.
23
And, what’s more
• “Apartment houses are often mere
parasites, taking advantage of the
residential character created by
surrounding single-family use. And, one
apartment house is followed by another,
creating noise, congestion, traffic until the
residential character is utterly destroyed.”
24
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
25
• “. . .the exclusion of buildings devoted to
business, trade, etc. from residential districts,
bears a rational relationship to the health and
safety of the community.”
• Therefore the exclusion of buildings devoted
to business, trade, etc. from residential
districts would be an exercise of the police
power to protect public health, safety etc.
26
Facial attack
• Southerland – “[We] determine . . . that the
ordinance in its general scope and dominant
features, so far as its provisions are here
involved, is a valid exercise of authority, leaving
other provisions to be dealt with as cases arise
directly involving them.
• [meaning that “other provisions” will be dealt
with as they are applied in individual cases]
27
The rest of the story
• The Ambler site remained vacant until
World War II, when it was rezoned by the
city to industrial as a site for a General
Motors aircraft plant.
• After the war GM used it as a Fisher body
plant, assembling Cadillac bodies.
• In 1994 GM closed the plant – permanently
• In 1996 the site sold for $3 million [$44,000
per acre] and is now available for rent.
28
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 acres * $25,000 =
– 22 acres * $25,000 =
– Change
$4.2 Million
0.1 Million
0.55 Million
$4.85 Million
-$1.95 Million
-29%
29
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?
30
31