If zoning laws make something illegal, does that violate constitutional rights?
A city has a zoning law making it illegal to operate a retail business in residential districts. Someone purchases a house in a residential district and wants to convert it into a restaurant. The city informs them that they cannot. Are their constitutional rights being violated?
a. Yes, the city’s zoning law has taken away the intended use of their property.
b. Yes, the zoning law violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution since it treats people living in residential areas differently than people living in commercial districts.
c. No, the zoning law existed before they attempted to open their restaurant and such laws are necessary for the orderly development of a community.
d. No, the Constitution does not apply to city zoning laws.
The best answer is C because a city has inherent police power to protect the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, including regulation of new uses of land or structures. On the other hand, it is not always true that such laws are "necessary for the orderly development", so that part of C would be false.
D would not be correct because, like any other ordinance, zoning must always pass Constitutional scrutiny for fairness, due process, taking without compensation, etc. Answes A and B are just silly; a property owner has no "vested right" to a particular use of his or her property if it would violate zoning (before or after he or she purchased the property), and a town can certainly have different zoning rules for different parts of town, as long as there is a rational basis.
i would say c
zoning laws protect the investments and plans of people
References :
Might I suggest you put all your homework questions in the Homework Help section, where you might find more people willing to assist you.
c
References :
A better framed question than most, but still looks like fishing for homework or a test.
References :
The answer is D. The Constitution does not apply to city zoning laws. There is nothing in the Constitution about this and this would be considered an issue of state law.
References :
C. The govt is deigning everyone from running a business in a residential area. They are equal in their disposition of the law.
Are you deigned equal protection if you decide you don’t want to right on the right side of the road?
References :
I would pick c because any Constitutional questions depend more on president, rather than fresh interpretations of the Constitution and it sounds the most logical.
There are many laws today that are unconstitutional, like Federal income taxation, but that doesn’t stop the government from collecting them. So the rule of thumb, as far as I’m concerned, is the government will do what the government will do, the Constitution not withstanding. So I think that your question is somewhat irrelevant until we finally either rewrite the Constitution or burn it.
References :
The best answer is C because a city has inherent police power to protect the health, safety and general welfare of its citizens, including regulation of new uses of land or structures. On the other hand, it is not always true that such laws are "necessary for the orderly development", so that part of C would be false.
D would not be correct because, like any other ordinance, zoning must always pass Constitutional scrutiny for fairness, due process, taking without compensation, etc. Answes A and B are just silly; a property owner has no "vested right" to a particular use of his or her property if it would violate zoning (before or after he or she purchased the property), and a town can certainly have different zoning rules for different parts of town, as long as there is a rational basis.
References :
It’s actually C. Zoning laws can be changed by the democratic process through the city council. The Equal Protection clause does not apply to businesses, only to individuals. There is much precedent to uphold this. One was some bus company vs the city of Chicago in like 1948.
References :
The Constitution does not apply. The Charter of Rights makes no guarantees on property rights. This is included in the Canadian Bill of Rights, the bulk of which was replaced with the Charter. The Bill of Rights was never enshrined in the constitution.
References :