Opinion ID: 2451189
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: HCC 21.68.020(c)

Text: Griswold also argues that HCC 21.68.020(c)'s provision that [a]n interest that is no different from that of the general public is not sufficient to confer standing violates ... due process and common sense. The City argues that HCC 21.68.020(c) did not deprive Griswold of a property interest sufficient to warrant constitutional protection. The test for deprivations of procedural due process under both the Alaska Constitution [43] and the United States Constitution [44] is the test outlined in Mathews v. Eldridge . [45] Under the Mathews test, a litigant claiming a due process violation must have been deprived of a cognizable liberty or property interest. [46] Griswold identifies no liberty or property interest of which HCC 21.68.020(c) deprived him. And the City is correct that any property interest great enough to be cognizable for the purposes of a due process violation would also have been sufficient to confer standing on Griswold under the Homer City Code.