Document: 426 U.S. 668 96 S.Ct. 2358 49 L.Ed.2d 132 CITY OF EASTLAKE et al., Petitioners,v.FOREST ENTERPRISES, INC. No. 74-1563. Argued March 1, 1976. Decided June 21, Syllabus The Ohio Constitution reserves to the people of each municipality in State power referendum with respect all questions that is authorized control by legislation. Respondent real estate developer applied for a zoning change permit construction high-rise apartment building on land it owned petitioner city. While application was pending, city charter amended popular vote so as require any changes use agreed City Council be approved 55% Vote referendum. Planning Commission recommended, and approved, proposed change, but rejected respondent's further "parking yard" approval ground Council's rezoning action had not been submitted then filed suit state court, seeking judgment declaring amendment invalid an unconstitutional delegation legislative people. defeated upheld trial court Court Appeals, Supreme reversed, holding constituted violative federal constitutional due process guarantees because voters were given no standards guide their decision. Held: does violate rights landowner who applies change. Pp. 672-679. (a) A referendum, which means direct political participation people, allowing them what amounts veto over enactments, cannot characterized power. In establishing bodies, can reserve themselves deal directly matters might otherwise assigned legislature, here specifically reserved under Constitution. 672-674. (b) doctrine regulatory bodies must accompanied discernible inapplicable where, here, rather than being delegated, exercised one themselves. P. 675. (c) result arbitrary capricious, bearing relation police power, open challenge where scope available remedy would determined matter law Fourteenth Amendment. 676-677. (d) As basic instrument democratic government, not, itself, Due Process Clause Amendment when ordinance. Eubank v. Richmond, 226 137, 33 76, 57 L.Ed. 156; Washington ex rel. Seattle Title Trust Co. Roberge, 278 116, 50, 73 210, distinguished. 677-679. 41 St.2d 187, 324 N.E.2d 740, reversed remanded. J. Melvin Andrews, Eastlake, Ohio, petitioners. William D. Ginn, Cleveland, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice BURGER delivered opinion Court. 1 question this case whether provision requiring ratified Of votes cast violates 2 suburb has comprehensive plan codified municipal Respondent, developer, acquired eight-acre parcel Eastlake zoned "light industrial" uses at time purchase. 3 May 1971, respondent multi-family, building. recommended Council, Eastlake's procedures could either accept or reject Commission's recommendation. Meanwhile, vote, referendum.1 recommendation reclassification property project. application, yet ratification. 4 people.2 requisite Margin. Following election, Common Pleas Appeals sustained provision.3 5 reversed. 740 (1975). Concluding enactment provisions function, held requirement, lacking decision voters, permitted standardless, hence capricious manner. Relying Court's decisions 210 (1928), Thomas Cusack Chicago, 242 526, 37 190, 61 472 (1917), 156 (1912), distinguishing James Valtierra, 402 91 1331, 28 678 (1971), concluded unlawful power.4 6 We reverse. 7 * conclusion procedure rests upon proposition involves cannot, however, Under our assumptions, derives from delegate representative instruments they create. See, E. g., Federalist 39 (v. Madison). legislature. Hunter Erickson, 393 385, 392, 89 557, 561, 21 616 (1969).5 8 reservation such basis town meeting, tradition continues day some States both practical symbolic part processes.6 similarly, participation, final decision, amounting enactments bodies. practice designed "give citizens voice public policy." supra, U.S., 141, S.Ct., 1333. 9 framing constitution, within State. 10 "The initiative powers are hereby municipalities may now hereafter . ." Const., Art. II, § 1f. 11 To subject Ohio's procedure, expressly found eight acres light industrial high-density residential nature.7 Distinguishing between administrative acts, separated zone rezone, passage ordinance, grant relief unnecessary hardship.8 former function nature.9 Accord, Denney Duluth, 295 Minn. 22, 28-29, 202 N.W.2d 892, 895-896 (1972); Smith Township Livingston, 106 N.J.Super. 444, 454, 256 A.2d 85, 90 (1969); Wollen Borough Fort Lee, 27 N.J. 408, 422, 142 881, 888-889 (1958); Johnston Claremont, Cal.2d 826, 835-836, 323 P.2d 71, 76-77 Dwyer 200 Cal. 505, 515, 253 932, 935-936 (1927); Hilltop Realty, Inc. South Euclid, 110 App. 535, 164 180 (1960). Compare Kelley John, 162 Neb. 319, 75 713 (1956), re Frank, 183 722, 723, 215, 216 (1969). II 12 "delegation" reasoned, mechanism existed, nor indeed exist, assure act rationally passing This meant "appropriate (would) made dependent potentially unreasonable whims voting public." St.2d, 195, N.E.2d, 746. potential arbitrariness process, concluded, violated process. 13 Courts have frequently other contexts congressional entity standards, delegatee's measured its fidelity will. Yakus United States, 321 414, 64 660, 88 834 (1944); Amalgamated Meat Cutters Connally, 337 F.Supp. 737 (DC 1971). Cf. FEA Algonquin SNG, 548, 2295, 49. See generally McQuillan, Municipal Corporations 25.161, pp. 521-522 (3d ed. 1965); Note, 1972 Duke L.J. 122. Assuming, Arguendo, relevance governmental functions, these cases involved legislature responsible people; dealing we themselves.10 14 basing claim requirements, also invokes Euclid Ambler Realty Co., 272 365, 47 114, 71 303 (1926), rely teaching case. owner restriction if measure "clearly unreasonable, having substantial health, safety, morals, general welfare." Id., 395, 121. If substantive fact wish save restriction. invalidating enacted referendum: 15 sovereignty itself those limitations duly adopted remain unrepealed." 561. 16 Lucas Colorado Gen. Assembly, 377 713, 736-737, 84 1459, 1473-1474, 632 (1964); West Virginia Bd. Educ. Barnette, 319 624, 638, 63 1178, 1185, 87 1628 (1943). 17 But sort contemplated before us. did hold, argue, present classification ordinance principles established Realty. considers law, well standards. That so, nothing more required Constitution.11 18 Nothing inconsistent conclusion. Two relied procedure. thread common originally body, turn delegated Narrow segment community, large. invalidated conferred establish setback lines owners two-thirds abutting street. Similarly, struck down establishment philanthropic homes aged areas, only written consent two-third 400 feet facility.12 19 Neither Roberge case; standardless limited group condemned equated decisionmaking through Ninth Circuit put way: 20 "A far expression ambiguously founded neighborhood preference. It legislating exercise traditional right legislation override views elected representatives serves interest." Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization Union City, California, 424 F.2d 291, 294 (1970). Our upholding California's mandatory confirms view. Black, speaking case, said: 22 "This ensures All community will lead large expenditures local funds increased services 143, 1334 (emphasis added) 23 Black went say issue classic demonstration "devotion democracy ordinance.13 Since properly People Constitution, erred invalid, grounds, permitting decide altered. 24 remanded proceedings opinion. 25 Reversed 26 POWELL, dissenting. There doubt propriety legality submitting applicable questions, including provisions, concerned status single small "person." affording realistic opportunity affected person heard, even electorate, fundamentally unfair. "spot" technique appears disquieting opportunities government bypass normal protective resolving issues affecting individual rights. STEVENS, whom BRENNAN joins, 29 city's reliance meeting tends obfuscate two critical These (1) employs deciding deny owner's request his comply Amendment; (2) employed fair? 30 rule favor theory requirement deprive interest therefore wholly inapplicable.1 After all, bought parcel, still retains classification. adopt rationale; nor, indeed, advance argument. On contrary, throughout litigation everyone assumed, without discussing problem, apply. Both reason authority support assumption.2 31 Subject imposed nuisance restrictions, develop own economic advantage. become scarce, planning constantly becomes sophisticated, needs unforeseen specific parcels continually increase. For reason, how be, regularly contains granting variances, amendments, exemptions pieces property.3 responsibly prepared need presently unforeseeable future change.4 32 code unlike property. deprivation caused customarily qualified recognizing apply variance accommodate needs. expectancy particular consistent allowed merits incident ownership, governing body offers seek denominated privilege protection making legitimate (like plaintiff) legal he seeks mean fair consideration application. codes provide exceptions changes, granted great frequency, record us contemplates allowed, my aspect ownership protected 34 supported few decided many well-reasoned state-court decisions. ordinances procedural reasons. method imposing building-line defective. analogous give plaintiff's Implicitly, hold meet standards.5 35 Although handful cases, literally thousands disputes resolved courts. Those courts repeatedly identified obvious difference adoption citywide involving parcels. situation there deference legislature; latter hesitated correct manifest injustice. 36 distinction plainly drawn Oregon: "Ordinances laying policies regard piece usually authority, review, attacked grounds abuse authority. hand, determination permissible should changed judicial altogether different test." Fasano Board County Comm'rs, 264 Or. 574, 580-581, 507 23, (1973). 38 And point "Zoning depending nature act. But, whatever importance categorization purposes, thereunder arrived fairly. made, subsequent code, basically adjudicatory. 40 "Generally, enacts acts policy capacity. amending reclassifying thereunder, same effect, makes adjudication sought proponents claimed opponents parties whose interests readily identifiable. important permeate amendment, greater impact generally." Fleming Tacoma, 81 Wash.2d 292, 298-299, 502 327, 331 (1972) (citations omitted).6 Specialists unhappily familiar exists inadequate safeguards dispensation special grants. arbitrarily rise exact intolerable conditions.7 insistence area falls squarely purpose 42 When examine comports standard "legislative" label should, highest represents way handling problem. 43 VIII, 3, November 2, three stages.8 At stage suggestion plan,9 budget adversely affect development.10 44 First, pay cost election Appeals.11 Second, invalid" insofar purported "in capacity." Without explaining instead administrative, though legislative, entire invalid. reasoned: 45 "Due requires structured fundamental choices among competing organ government. protect individuals against assuring underlying articulated McGautha California 183, 256, 270, 1454, 711. ignored concepts blatantly assurance reached thereby reasonable rational. reasons, clearly clause Amendment." 196, 746 (1975) (footnote omitted). 46 concurring expressed additional reasons regarding arbitrary. four members Court, Stern stated: "There little true obstruct use, rendering burdensome prohibitive. apparently specifically, prevent multi-family housing, while Forest City's housing project pending Council. restrictive crudely apparent face. Any regardless minor, city-wide receive, simple majority, least 55 percent affirmative vote. Finally, although gives hint exactly costs billed owner. 48 subtlety this; simply attempt render difficult expensive guise democracy. "Even stripped harsher poses serious problems. mandatory, must, necessity, submit person's imagine Cleveland. By provision, corner gasoline station hundreds most living miles away, slightest matter. caprice, seriously dilute private recognizes inevitably neighbors and, surrounding community. entitled balanced owner; owner, proposes benign property, obtain assent persons interest, goes beyond purpose." 199-200, 748-749. 50 Justices recognized, fairness determining make land. described character majority sentiment reference articulable standards.12 Moreover, statutory approvals opposed amendments parcels.13 characterizing "administrative" revision "legislative."14 51 proposal "legislative." I think "administrative." thus differ selection action, find agreement tribunals like manifestly unreasonable. Surely 52 essence interested dispute rules. conflicting rigs litigants, elementary decision-maker impartial understand controlling 53 about validity appropriate policy.15 equally clear acceptable adjudicating litigants. problem presented unique, involve three-sided controversy, conflict neighbors, preserving plan. controversy predominant, indicates contradiction threat since allegation apartments industry raise concern treated essential merits. 54 points out opinion, absurd operated told 20,000 Eastlake. Conceivably, development sufficiently dramatic arouse community; conceivable indifferent uninformed wisdom warehouse factory acres. silent alternatives probable. places obstacle path every provides exempting claims justification am persuaded judiciary's appraisal case.16 conclude correctly Amendment, affirmed. Charter pertinent part: "That existing whatsoever unless until shall Commission, disapproval. event council approve preceding disapproved passed declaration emergency, effective, Favorable electors next regular occur less sixty (60) hundred twenty (120) days after passage, falling primary election. contended adopted. neither appealed argued Court; Pleas, assessment affirming, portion court's judgment. No appeal taken issue. was, accordingly, therefor 55%-Affirmative such. Instead, margin approval, assembly, provided: states vested General Assembly propose laws polls 1. Massachusetts, example, inhabitants convene regulating nuisances. A. De Wolf, Town Meeting: Manual Massachusetts Law 136 (1890). Bryan, Meeting Government Still Supported Vermont, Nat.Civic R. 348 (1972). requested likely entail services, schools fire protection. 143 n. 4, 1334, (1971). diminish development. nature, "interferes" significantly owners' hornbook "(m)ere diminution market value interference personal plans desires relative insufficient invalidate entitle him rezoning." 25.44, p. 111 1965). is, course, contention renders valueless diminishes below it. "with matter, realm affairs 16.54, 208 1969). However, acting Legislative capacity binding interpretation hardship occasioned restrictions avenues analysis requirements flowing sweeps too broadly. Except history informs conscientiously applying voters. certainty "standards" explicit Nor townspeople assembling do, (1969), according inquiry, rather, produces results. rested solely petition certiorari holding. Pet. Cert. 2. Accordingly, confine ourselves considering denied challenged amendment. considered (1917). contrast Upheld waive prohibiting billboards. distinguished following "(The ) left line untouched lot gave effect law. bar absolutely prohibits erection billboards permits prohibition modified modification." 531, 192. limitation, all. Ibid. fears dissent rest "fundamentally unfair" landowners; fails take into account mechanisms desired Administrative available. Indeed, very "variances" officials avoid "practical difficulties hardship." 25.159, 511 noted, Supra, 677, remedies t action. (1926). denigrating depreciating land; instead, effort Change impaired; new Thus, free attached acquired. provides: "No U.S.Const., Amdt. 14, reported maps changed, various reasons; circumstances justified? criteria valid N. Williams, American Land (1974). "Legally, enabling contemplate possibility dezoning, amend serving purpose. do show face intended errors hardships, readjustments called changing neighborhoods; undoubtedly, Freund, Some Inadequately Discussed Problems Zoning, Ill.L.Rev. 135, 145 (1929). "For communities, long range based generalized facts proved theoretician's dream, soon dissolved series map variances reflecting, generally, brought unanticipated often events: social ecological location availability roads utilities, (especially financing), needs, any, consumer choice. Kropf Sterling Heights, 391 Mich. 139, 168, 215 179, 191-192 used future." National & Investment Easttown Adjustment, 419 Pa. 504, 528, 597, 610 (1965). "the process." Ante, 678. Whether sufficient adequacy undermine afford followed Colorado: "Although early viewed Rezoning recent activity quasi-judicial reviewable Rule 106(a)(4). doing, adjudicative enacting concisely 327 (1972)." Snyder Lakewood, Colo., 542 371, 373-374 (footnotes One expert comment: freedom accountability tolerable engaged sense dispensing refusing dispense pass performing role strictures place agency charged denying privileges persons. crosses hearing petitions adversary expect agency." Babcock, Zoning Game 158 (1966). comment another "zoning man." Staszcuk, 517 53, 56 (CA7 1975). exceptional bit worth reading entirety: "SECTION 3. MANDATORY REFERRAL referring regulations selling leasing rental parkways, playgrounds, lands widening, narrowing, re-locating, vacating, street, avenue, boulevard, alley Said applicant, applicant agrees assume post bond Auditor amount estimated Elections proportionate ballot time. agree authorize advertise, obligations pay, notice posted newspaper circulation, circulation largest, second largest limits consecutive times, weeks notices third week prior Should affirmed again full year "It duty codes, maps, thoroughfare sewer advice approving section always completely constructed Mayor, Safety Director, Service Director Building Inspector structure removed 60 owner(')s expense enforcement section. charge fund display times chambers map, showing legend summary district, (m)ajor (m)inimum maximum width park, playground accurately located date revisions date. occurrence. Maps nominal exceed $2.50 demand. six months change." proposal. speculation 673 7, that, "would protection." seems residents move receive lived elsewhere. "change development." accurate, surprising never tried enforce requirement; refused cover cost, ahead anyway. "But restricting corporation plebiscite benefit. " Benner Tribbitt, 190 Md. 6, 20, 346, 353 (1948). poll neighborhood." Homecroft Macbeth, 238 Ind. 57, 62-63, 148 563, 566 (1958). proper base (on rezoning) merely 'strenuous objections Town' (the Board) (3). Such remonstrances heard board's Heffernan Board, R.I. 26, 144 674. weigh wishes landowners vicinity hearing." Kent Barrington, 74 89, 92, 58 623, 624 "Rather, zoning. it, rational allocation use. insurance welfare served just Gallup poll." (Emphasis added.) Udell Haas, N.Y.2d 463, 469, 288 N.Y.S.2d 888, 893-894, 235 897, 900-901 (1968). "While statute heretofore construed believe supports position plaintiff referendum-election type altering ordinance." Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Nadasdy, 247 159, 165, 76 670, 675 (1956). referendary "We referen- dum. extends acts. form (amendment ordinance) thought substance act." Portage, 392 458, 460-461, 221 303, 304 "An business executive municipalities." 714 (1956) (syllabus court). Terrace master Subsequent adoption, certain commercial studied commission held. determinative Was legislative. former, logic court. electors, rendered inoperative. implementing adjusting current conditions." Bird Sorenson, Utah 2d 1-2, 394 808 (1964). 678, "use referendums publicly financed project, "lead lower tax revenues," raises footnote identifies why assumption virtually expected first "hardship" shown, "Administrative available"; "potential" relief, undefined class include respondent's. constitutionally grounds. unconstitutional, parcel. ordinary vindicated attack itself.

Category: 7