Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning Bulletin October 10, 2010 I Volume 4 I No. 19 . <br />cess constitute[d] a taking under the Fifth Amendment to the Unit- <br />ed States Constitution." They had also argued that because the <br />Ordinance was "irrational and wholly arbitrary" it denied them <br />"the right to equal protection of the law" in violation of the 14th <br />Amendment to the United States Constitution. The court rejected <br />both arguments, finding the fees assessed: were a "fair approxima- <br />tion of the cost of benefits supplied "; and had "a rational basis in <br />that they [were] related to the City's interest of fulfilling its duty to <br />provide sanitation to its residents ...." <br />Validity of Zoning Regulations —City Adopts <br />Ordinance Imposing Rent Ceiling on Some <br />Types of Property <br />Landlords contend ordinance is, in fact, an impermissible <br />zoning ordinance <br />Citation: Tyler v. City of College Park, 2010 WL 3341878 (Md. 2010) <br />MARYLAND (08 /25/10) —This case addressed the issue of whether <br />a rent control ordinance was an act of "de facto zoning" (i.e., in fact, <br />impermissible zoning) beyond the city's enumerated powers. <br />The Background/Facts: In 2005, the City of College Park (the <br />"City ") adopted a rent control ordinance (the "Ordinance "). Sec- <br />tion 127 -4 of the Ordinance established a rent ceiling for rental units <br />in the city. Section 127 -2 of the Ordinance provided that the rent <br />ceiling did not apply to a "considerable number of excepted prop- <br />erty types, including, [among others], hotels, university housing, and <br />apartment buildings." <br />Four owners of affected rental properties in the City, along with <br />one student renter, (hereinafter, the "Landlords ") challenged the new <br />Ordinance. They contended that the City enacted the Ordinance "for <br />the explicit purposes of discouraging in the City the rental property <br />market in so- called `single - family' neighborhoods." They said that <br />the program "nudg[ed] renters to nearby apartment buildings or fu- <br />ture apartment complexes." They argued that the primary purpose of <br />the rent control program was not to protect tenants; rather, they said <br />it was to decrease the number of "single - family" properties used as <br />rental units, while encouraging construction of new apartment build - <br />ings—in order to "improve the balance between rental supply and <br />demand in the City." They maintained that such a purpose and act <br />© 2010 Thomson Reuters 9 <br />21 <br />