Agenda - Planning Commission - 04/07/2011

Home

Zoning Bulletin February 25, 2011 Volume 5 No. 4 the property "practically useless." Accordingly, the court concluded that there was no compensable taking. Addressing Bettendorf's due process claims, the court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment protects against state action that deprives a person of property without due process of law. Bettendorf had argued that he was not afforded adequate procedural due process in the state court system. The court disagreed. It noted that, in order to prevail on his procedural due process claim, Bettendorf had to show that "he was deprived of a full and fair hearing to adjudicate his rights." The court found that was not the case here. Rather, here: Bettendorf initiated state court review of the Ordinance; and he knew the County's position on appeal was that the Ordinance was invalid in its entirety. Bettendorf had the opportunity to rebut that position before the court of appeals. In other words, Bettendorf was on notice that the Ordinance could be struck down and his commercial rights rescinded, and he had an oppor- tunity to be heard on that issue before the court of appeals. Accordingly, the court concluded that Bettendorf's procedural due process rights were not violated. See also: Concrete Pipe and Products of California, Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern California, S08 U.S. 602, 113 S. Ct. 2264, 124 L. Ed. 2d 539, 16 Employee Benefits Cas. (BNA) 2265 (1993). See also: Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 101 S. Ct. 1908, 68 L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981) (overruled by, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 106 S. Ct. 662, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986)). Case Note: Bettendorf had also argued that the County's rescission of the conditional commercial zoning designation violated his sub- stantive due process rights. The court said that for that to be the case, the County would have had to have "exercise[d] its power without reasonable justification in a manner that `shocks the con- science."' The court found that the County's decision to revoke the commercial designation could "hardly be considered conscious - shocking or arbitrary." The County was merely complying with a judgment from the court of appeals; its action was "utterly reason- able and not a violation of substantive due process," concluded the court. © 2011 Thomson Reuters 7