| Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued January 27, 1926 Reargued October 12, 1926 Decided November 22, 1926 | |
| Full case name | Village of Euclid, Ohio, et al. v. Ambler Realty Company |
| Citations | 272U.S.365 (more) |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Holding | |
| The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village's police power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Sutherland, joined by Taft, Holmes, Brandeis, Sanford, Stone |
| Dissent | Van Devanter, McReynolds, Butler |
| Laws applied | |
| U.S. Const. amend. XIV | |
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926), more commonly known asEuclid v. Ambler, was aUnited States Supreme Courtlandmark case[1] argued in 1926. It was the first significant case regarding the relatively new practice ofzoning. The Supreme Court's finding thatlocal ordinance zoning was a valid exercise of thepolice power bolsteredzoning in the United States and influenced other countries.
Ambler Realty owned 68 acres (0.28 km2) of land in the village ofEuclid, Ohio, a suburb of theindustrial city ofCleveland. In an attempt to prevent Cleveland from subsuming the village and the growth of industry which mightchange its character, Euclid developed azoning ordinance based upon six classes of use, three classes of height and four classes of area. The property in question was divided into three classes of use, as well as various height and area classes, thereby hindering Ambler Realty from developing the land for industry. Ambler Realty sued the village of Euclid, arguing that the zoning ordinance had substantially reduced the value of the land by limiting its use, amounting to a deprivation of Ambler's liberty and property withoutdue process.
When initially heard by theUS District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Euclid moved to dismiss the complaint entirely, arguing that Ambler Realty had no right to sue in the first place without taking the issue before the Euclid Zoning Board, as required by the zoning ordinance. Euclid based their argument on a legal doctrine which has come to be known as theexhaustion of administrative remedies. The District Court denied this motion, finding that the zoning ordinance did in fact constitute an act oftaking by Euclid of Ambler Realty's property, and that the ordinance wasunconstitutional. The ordinance defined the use and size of buildings permissible in each district. Ambler Realty's land spanned multiple districts, and the company was therefore significantly restricted in the types of buildings it could construct on the land. Thus, there was no reason for the company to abide by the ordinance's requirement. Euclid's motion was denied and the lower court decided in favor of Ambler Realty. Prominent lawyerNewton D. Baker argued the case for Ambler Realty andJames Metzenbaum represented Euclid.
The Supreme Court agreed with the lower court's denial of the dismissal motion, but overturned the outcome of the case and sided with the Village of Euclid. The Court held that the zoning ordinance was not an unreasonable extension of the village'spolice power and did not have the character of arbitrary fiat, and thus it was not unconstitutional.
Further, the Court found that Ambler Realty had offered no evidence that the ordinance had any effect on the value of the property in question, but based their assertions of depreciation on speculation only. The Court ruled that speculation was not a valid basis for a claim of takings.
Ambler Realty had argued their case on the basis of the14th Amendment'sdue process clause. The Court noted that the challenger in a due process case would have to show that the law in question is discriminatory and has no rational basis. The Court found that Euclid's zoning ordinance in fact did have a rational basis.
Planner and lawyerAlfred Bettman, supported by theOhio Planning Conference (now APA-Ohio, a chapter of theAmerican Planning Association), submitted anamicus brief on behalf of Euclid, arguing that zoning is a form of nuisance control and therefore a reasonable police power measure.
In short the Court ruled that zoning ordinances, regulations and laws must find their justification in some aspect of police power and asserted for the public welfare. Benefit for the public welfare must be determined in connection with the circumstances, the conditions and the locality of the case.[2][3]
At the time ofEuclid v. Ambler, zoning was a relatively new concept, and indeed there had been rumblings that it was an unreasonable intrusion into privateproperty rights for a government to restrict how an owner might use property. The Supreme Court, in holding that there was valid government interest in maintaining the character of a neighborhood and in regulating where certain land uses should occur, allowed for the subsequent explosion in zoning ordinances across the country. The Supreme Court has never heard a case seeking to overturn the decision. Today most local governments in the United States have zoning ordinances.Houston, Texas is the largest unzoned city in the United States, although it usesdeed restrictions instead.[4]
In 1928, less than two years later, the Supreme Court decided inNectow v. City of Cambridge that a zoning ordinance had depreciated the value of the plaintiff's property, and overturned the ordinance for violating the 14th Amendment due process clause.
The Ambler tract remained undeveloped for 20 years untilGeneral Motors built an aircraft plant there duringWorld War II, and later a GMFisher Body plant until the 1970s. On June 9, 2016, the City of Euclid and the Euclid Landmarks Commission dedicated an Ohio Historical Marker at the Euclid Police Mini-Station on HGR Industrial Surplus’ property at 20001 Euclid Avenue to formally recognize the site at the center of the U.S. Supreme Court case.[5]
In recent years, restrictive zoning ordinances have been blamed for rising housing costs in American cities.[6] Bothprogressive andconservative legal scholars have begun calling forEuclid v. Ambler to be overturned or severely limited under the Takings Clause of theFifth Amendment.[7]
{{cite journal}}:Cite journal requires|journal= (help)
Works related toVillage of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company at Wikisource