FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W305091774> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W305091774 endingPage "1091" @default.
• W305091774 startingPage "1049" @default.
• W305091774 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION During the late 1990s, the City of Payson, Utah, received several applications to rezone portions of the west side of the interstate corridor to accommodate medium-density and high-density housing1 in accordance with Payson City's comprehensive plan2-a plan that outlines the general goals and vision of the city's future development.3 Payson City denied the applications without providing any basis justifying its decision.4 The landowners involved in both proceedings filed suit against Payson City, and the trial court reversed Payson City's decision because it had evidentiary support other than popular opinion.5 On appeal, the court of appeals held that no factual basis or evidence supporting the city's denial of the rezoning petition was required because as a legislative proceeding, the decision need only be reasonably debatable.6 While the character of the hearings was not in dispute, the legislative nature of the public hearings was less than obvious. The Payson City Council basically heard arguments from two groups of people: those whose properties would be affected negatively by the zoning change and those whose property would be affected positively. At heart, the city council made an adjudication of individual property owners' rights and bowed to popular opinion. Such a decision completely ignored the important principles of effective planning and the due process rights of property owners. Although zoning amendments have many characteristics that reflect adjudicative rather than legislative decision-making, most courts view such city council decisions as legislative actions requiring great deference.7 Such light judicial review allows municipalities to sacrifice the due process and property rights of certain individuals to the private interests of other individuals under the guise of public interest and legislative power.8 It also leads to poor planning, leaving cities with a mess of ad hoc zoning based on individual developer petitions and plans.9 Since land use regulation first became a cognizable form of state police power in the early part of the last century,10 the judiciary has reviewed local land use decisions11 in order to ensure compliance with state statutes, due process, and property rights. In reviewing these decisions, courts became aware of the importance of maintaining legislative deference without compromising adjudicative legitimacy. In striking this balance, courts have created a maze of jurisprudence aimed at developing a system of meaningful review for local adjudicative decisions while maintaining deference to legislative decisions.12 Recognizing that the difference between legislative and adjudicative decisions is subtle, courts have developed two separate tests to help determine what category a land use decision falls into. Also, many courts have strived to maintain high deference to legislative land use decisions,13 while a few courts have restricted legislative deference based on a justifiable fear of irrational and unsubstantiated local land use decisions that are heavily influenced by particular groups or constituencies and rarely promote the central goals of community planning.14 While partially based on practical concerns, the legislative/adjudicative distinction is also based upon the principled separation of powers doctrine, which mandates that legislative power be treated differently from adjudicative power.15 Because separation of powers is often strained and vague at the local level,16 some scholars have attempted to rework these principles so as to better apply them to local government.17 Few scholars, however, have examined the possibility of abandoning the distinction and developing one standard of review for land use decisions18 and limiting pure legislative power in local land use to the development of a general or comprehensive plan.19 In 1999, the Utah Supreme Court arguably suggested such a standard of review in Springville Citizens for a Better Community v. …" @default.
• W305091774 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W305091774 creator A5090081812 @default.
• W305091774 date "2004-01-01" @default.
• W305091774 modified "2023-09-26" @default.
• W305091774 title "Dysfunctional Distinctions in Land Use: The Failure of Legislative/Adjudicative Distinctions in Utah and the Case for a Uniform Standard of Review" @default.
• W305091774 hasPublicationYear "2004" @default.
• W305091774 type Work @default.
• W305091774 sameAs 305091774 @default.
• W305091774 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W305091774 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W305091774 hasAuthorship W305091774A5090081812 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C204434341 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C2778449503 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C2780597233 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C2780900520 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C2781442640 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C48764862 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C520944541 @default.
• W305091774 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C11171543 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C144024400 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C15744967 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C17744445 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C199539241 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C204434341 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C2778449503 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C2780597233 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C2780900520 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C2781442640 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C48764862 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C520944541 @default.
• W305091774 hasConceptScore W305091774C83009810 @default.
• W305091774 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W305091774 hasLocation W3050917741 @default.
• W305091774 hasOpenAccess W305091774 @default.
• W305091774 hasPrimaryLocation W3050917741 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W1486698948 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W1493704314 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W153833789 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W1549439740 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W1919369970 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W19196944 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W192519712 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W2014755108 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W2091005948 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W2276576692 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W2614830161 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W274401092 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W2900016106 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W3121201353 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W3124076490 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W3125231729 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W3125734092 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W318150657 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W3207582952 @default.
• W305091774 hasRelatedWork W1814970404 @default.
• W305091774 hasVolume "2004" @default.
• W305091774 isParatext "false" @default.
• W305091774 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W305091774 magId "305091774" @default.
• W305091774 workType "article" @default.