Court Opinion

ID: 9662564
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:13:16.993868+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:40.764956
License: Public Domain

WOLLE, Justice
(dissenting).
I would reverse because I conclude from my de novo review of this record that the rezoning ordinance as applied to the plaintiffs’ property passed constitutional muster. I disagree with the trial court’s conclusion that the zoning of the plaintiffs’ property was illegal spot zoning and so unreasonable and arbitrary as to serve no public interest. I disagree with the majori*402ty’s conclusion that the city’s rezoning of the property amounted to an unconstitutional taking.
I. The trial court found the city had “no rational basis for the rezoning” and labeled it as “spot zoning” which was “illegal and void”. I disagree with both that finding and those legal conclusions of the trial court. The rezoning ordinance here challenged was not precipitously dropped upon this property. Years of land use study and planning preceded adoption of this ordinance; it was designed to implement the city’s comprehensive land use plan. The objects of the plan and the ordinance were public purposes: to minimize incompatible land uses and to preserve existing neighborhoods. The rezoning ordinance promoted those objects and constituted a valid legislative exercise of police power by the city. See Kent v. Polk County Board of Supervisors, 391 N.W.2d 220, 225 (Iowa 1986). A zoning ordinance should be allowed to stand notwithstanding a substantive due process challenge when it is facially valid and its reasonableness is fairly debatable. Business Ventures, Inc. v. Iowa City, 234 N.W.2d 376, 381 (Iowa 1975); Cole v. City of Osceola, 179 N.W.2d 524, 528 (Iowa 1970); see A. Vestal, Iowa Land Use And Zoning Law § 2.16, at 57-58 (1979). I conclude from this record that the city made a number of tough legislative choices in adopting the various land use provisions contained within this rezoning ordinance, and the resulting ordinance had a rational nexus to legitimate public purposes. The plaintiffs did not sustain their heavy burden to overcome the strong presumption that the city’s rezoning ordinance satisfied substantive due process both facially and as applied to their specific property.
II. I disagree with the majority opinion’s conclusion that the city unconstitutionally used this ordinance as a substitute for eminent domain. I agree that on this constitutional issue we must carefully balance the public good which legislative action was designed to achieve against any oppressive effects upon individual citizens. The application of a zoning ordinance to a particular property may not be so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to an unconstitutional taking without the just compensation mandated by eminent domain. Kasparek v. Johnson County Board of Health, 288 N.W.2d 511, 517-18 (Iowa 1980); F.H. Uelner Precision Tools & Dies, Inc. v. City of Dubuque, 190 N.W.2d 465, 469 (Iowa 1971). Unlike the majority, however, I conclude this rezoning ordinance did not squeeze all economic value from the property.
The plaintiffs’ own evidence, viewed realistically, clearly disclosed that their property after rezoning had substantial value. The evidence showing diminution in the market value of the property was not sufficient to overcome the presumption that the city’s exercise of police power by enactment of this zoning ordinance was within constitutional limits. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U.S. 104, 124-25, 98 S.Ct. 2646, 2659, 57 L.Ed.2d 631, 648-49 (1978); Stone v. City of Wilton, 331 N.W.2d 398, 402 (Iowa 1983) (Land use restrictions may be upheld “even though the challenged regulations destroyed or adversely affected recognized real property interests or flatly prohibited the most beneficial use of the property.”).
I would uphold the city’s rezoning of the plaintiffs’ property and therefore would reverse the trial court’s decision.