Laserfiche WebLink
March 10, 2010 ~ Volume 4 (No. 5 Zoning Bulletin <br />See also: Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 562, 120 S. Ct. <br />1073, 145 L. Ed. 2d 1060, 30 Envtl. L. Rep. 20360 (2000). <br />See also: Snail v. Village of Lisle, Ill., 588 F.3d 940 (7th Cir. 2009). <br />Case Note: The court noted that, with class-of-one equal protection <br />claim cases, it has sometimes "required proof that the state action <br />was motivated by illegitimate animus against the plaintiff (i.e., the <br />party bringing the claim], while others have treated illegitimate ani- <br />mus as an alternative basis for class-of-one liability." <br />Case Note: Reget had also claimed that a rezoning project had <br />targeted him in violation of his equal protection rights. Reget had <br />maintained that "his was the only property in the rezoning initia- <br />tive that was slated to be reclassified from a heavy industrial to a <br />commercial use." The court found that Reget's claim failed because: <br />"100 properties were ultimately rezoned"; and Reget had failed to <br />identify "a similarly situated compazison property-in his immediate <br />neighborhood or otherwise-that was treated more favorably." <br />First Amendment-City regulations distinguish f"___; <br />between signs and billboards on private <br />property and those on government property <br />Outdoor advertisers challenge zoning regulations as <br />"unconstitutionally underinclusive" in their treatment of <br />commercial speech <br />Citation: Clear Channel Outdoor, Inc. v. City of New York, 2010 WL <br />367550 (2d Cir. 2010) <br />The Second U.S. Circuit has jurisdiction over Connecticut, New York, <br />and Vermont. <br />SECOND CIRCUIT (CONNECTICUT, NEW YORK, AND VER- <br />MONT) (02/03/10)-This case involved allegations that a city's zoning <br />regulations were "unconstitutionally underinclusive," imposing uncon- <br />stitutional restrictions on the commercial speech rights of billboard and <br />panel sign owners in violation of the First Amendment of the United <br />States Constitution or the New York State Constitution. <br />The Background/Facts: This decision applied to two cases, azgued in <br />tandem before the court: <br />In the fast case, the plaintiffs (i.e., the party bringing the challenge) in- ) <br />eluded various owners of large billboards: Clear Channel Outdoor Inc.; ` <br />Atlantic Outdoor Advertising, Inc.;. Scenic Outdoor, Inc:; Troystar City <br />4 ©2010 Thomson Reuters <br />30 <br />