Agenda - Planning Commission - 03/04/2010

Home

I ! ! ! , \ ~ ~ I I l , i . I : . i i ~ , .' ...:'; '.: '" . '. I , 1 I 1 , I ! clO , ]. i ~ t. i 'j I I ! , i I I .1 I I I I I ! ./ ! ! . J .. ()' I ..................... ~~.. . I .....,.. .. . G- o . --.... I :.y. .4. . ....". . ...- . Zoning Bulletin January 10, 2010 I Volume 41 No.1 Validity of Zoning Regulations-Homeowners argue city's "point of sale" ordinance violates their due process rights. They say ordinance lacks procedural safeguards to protect their right to sell their property . Citation: . Mann v. Calumet City, Ill., 2009 WL 4546352 (7th Cir. 2009) . The Seventh U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. SEVENTH CIRCUIT (ILLINOIS) (12/07/09)-Thiscase addressed whether a city's "point of sale" ordinance was procedurally inadequate so as to violate homeowners' constitutional due process rights. The BackgroundlFacts: The city's "point of sale" ordinance', (the "Ordinance") forbade the sale of a house without an inspection to de- termine its compliance with the city's building code. The Ordinance required a property owner to notify the city of a proposed sale of his property. The city then had 28 days to conduct a compliance inspec- tion. Ifa homeowner would not consent to an inspection, the city had 10 days to get from a judge a warrant authorizing an inspection for compliance with the. building code. Then, within three business days of the inspection, the city had to notify the homeowner as to whether the house was in compliance with the building code. If repairs were required, the homeowner had to: make repairs -(after which the city had three business days to re-inspect); or sell the house to a buyer who posted a bond equal to the expected cost of bringing the' house into compliance (with the buyer then having 180 days to make repairs). Re- pair or deconversion orders could be appealed by the homeowner.' . Homeowners Hussein Mann and Debra Houston-Mann challenged the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Homeowner Alonzo Smiley also ch~.dlenged the constitutionality of the Ordinance. They argued that, "on.its face" (i.e., as written), the Ordinance violated their due pro- cess rights under the 14th Ainendment to the United States Constitu- tion. The 14th Amendment prohibits state and local governments from depriving a person of property without due process of law. Specifically, the Manns and Smiley (collectively, the "Homeowners") argued that "the restrictions that the [O]rdinance place[d] on their property rights [were] irrational and therefore deprive[d] them of property without due process of law." More specifically, the Homeowners argued that the Ordinance was "procedunilly inadequate" in that it failed to pro- tect them from "unreasonable limitations on [their] property rights," including the right to sell their property. They argued that to be con- stitutional, the Ordinance had to: (1) have a "pre-deprivation" proce- dure, such as a requirement that the city go to court or hold a hearing @ 2010 Thomson Reuters 5 "'-'wl ~ .,~ . ;, -; '". ,~ . ""It . , ;,<' -:;/ r' .... . 57