FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3125231729> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3125231729 startingPage "717" @default.
• W3125231729 abstract "This Article questions whether traditional judicial deference to local land use regulators is justified in light of the highly discretionary, and often corrupt, modern system of land use regulation. In 2000, Congress determined, first, that unlike other forms of economic legislation, land use regulation lacks objective, generally applicable standards, leaving zoning officials with unlimited discretion in granting or denying zoning applications, and second, that this unlimited discretion lends itself to religious discrimination. Congress therefore enacted the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), which requires courts to apply strict scrutiny review to land use decisions that impact religious land uses. Since its enactment, the constitutionality of RLUIPA has been debated extensively. Many scholars maintain that the statute is an overly broad exemption that creates a privileged class of land users and allows religious institutions to avoid a community's reasonable land use concerns. In contrast, this Article argues that in enacting RLUIPA, Congress identified a global flaw in land use regulation that impacts all land users, but limited its remedy to religious land users. While RLUIPA's strict scrutiny review is clearly inappropriate for land use cases that involve neither fundamental rights nor suspect classes, traditional judicial deference is equally inappropriate in light of the discretionary nature of modern zoning. Fortunately, the Supreme Court established the appropriate standard of review in its earliest zoning cases. This Article thus maintains that RLUIPA is significant because it highlights a fundamental flaw in local land use regulation, and because its bifurcated approach to judicial review of zoning decisions revives an early facial/as-applied dichotomy in land use jurisprudence and encourages more meaningful judicial review of all as-applied land use decisions. INTRODUCTION I. JUDICIAL DEFERENCE AND THE DISCRETIONARY NATURE OF LOCAL LAND USE REGULATION A. The Rise of Zoning and the Origins of Judicial Deference B. Judicial Deference in Light of Discretionary Modern Zoning Practice II. RLUIPA's LAND USE PROVISIONS AND THE INDIVIDUALIZED ASSESSMENTS DOCTRINE A. The History and Purpose of RLUIPA's Land Use Provisions B. The Doctrine C. RLUIPA's Bifurcated Framework for Judicial Review 1. Zoning Ordinances Applied Through Individualized Assessments 2. The Facial/As-Applied Dichotomy III. LOOKING BEYOND RELIGIOUS LAND USE A. Religious Discrimination or Zoning as Usual? B. Judicial Review of As-Applied Land Use Decisions: Euclid and Nectow CONCLUSION INTRODUCTION In 2000, the city of New London, Connecticut, undertook a redevelopment project designed to rejuvenate the economically depressed Fort Trumbull portion of the city. As part of that plan, the city condemned several private homes and transferred them to a private developer. In what is now a wellknown story, the Supreme Court, in Kelo v. City of New London, (1) upheld the transfer as a valid public use under the Takings Clause. (2) The Kelo decision sparked a public outcry, with many worrying that it cast all private property rights into doubt. (3) In the year following Kelo, twenty-nine states acted to restrict the use of the eminent domain power. (4) In light of this tremendous resurgence of private property rights protection in the eminent domain arena, it is surprising that so little attention has been paid to a more common threat to private property rights: local zoning. (5) This Article seeks to bridge that gap by focusing more broadly on judicial review of local land use regulation. In the United States, zoning has traditionally been a function of local governments. (6) Despite the universality of local control, as the pace and complexity of development has increased in recent decades, both scholars and planning experts have begun to question the value of localism in the context of land use regulation. …" @default.
• W3125231729 created "2021-02-01" @default.
• W3125231729 creator A5030801631 @default.
• W3125231729 date "2008-03-22" @default.
• W3125231729 modified "2023-09-28" @default.
• W3125231729 title "Judicial Review of Local Land Use Decisions: Lessons from RLUIPA" @default.
• W3125231729 hasPublicationYear "2008" @default.
• W3125231729 type Work @default.
• W3125231729 sameAs 3125231729 @default.
• W3125231729 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3125231729 countsByYear W31252317292012 @default.
• W3125231729 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3125231729 hasAuthorship W3125231729A5030801631 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C147176958 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C17319257 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2776512386 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2777351106 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2777632292 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2780597233 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C2781442640 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C46415393 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C4792198 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C520944541 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConcept C87501996 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C127413603 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C144024400 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C147176958 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C17319257 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C17744445 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C199539241 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2776050585 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2776512386 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2777351106 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2777632292 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2778272461 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2780597233 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C2781442640 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C46415393 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C4792198 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C520944541 @default.
• W3125231729 hasConceptScore W3125231729C87501996 @default.
• W3125231729 hasIssue "2" @default.
• W3125231729 hasLocation W31252317291 @default.
• W3125231729 hasOpenAccess W3125231729 @default.
• W3125231729 hasPrimaryLocation W31252317291 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W130358473 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1486698948 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1514565377 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1515797976 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1566039142 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1566445908 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1584704782 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W19196944 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W2025744824 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W2050997163 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W219191136 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W2344928638 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W2400191507 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W2614830161 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W299978498 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W3009263610 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W305091774 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W336859508 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W51746310 @default.
• W3125231729 hasRelatedWork W1930457374 @default.
• W3125231729 hasVolume "31" @default.
• W3125231729 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3125231729 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3125231729 magId "3125231729" @default.
• W3125231729 workType "article" @default.