Agenda - Planning Commission - 10/06/2011

Home

August 10, 2011 1 Volume 5 ( No. 15 Zoning Bulletin and an attempt to comply with them afterward would be an "empty formal- ism." Since the Land Use Regulations were adopted pursuant to Missouri statutory law, the consent judgment's circumvention of them violated state law, concluded the court. The district court had concluded that even if the consent judgment violated state law, such a violation was "not fatal to the consent judgment because 'the granting of the permit was a necessary remedy to rectify the violation of the TCA."' The U.S. Court of Appeals disagreed. The court explained that "[s]uch judicial action [approving a consent judgment that violates state' law] is autho- rized only when the federal law in question mandates the remedy contained in the settlement. Even then, `[r]emedies that override state law must be narrow- ly tailored so as to infringe state sovereignty as minimally as possible."' Here, the TCA prescribed no particular remedy. In any case, the court found that the consent judgment not only provided for issuance of the CUP, but issuance of "any other permits necessary" as well. The court said it "fail[ed] to see how re- quiring the issuance of other permits, such as a building permit, [was] necessary to remedy the alleged TCA violation at issue here." Accordingly, "[b]ecause the consent judgment's remedy [was] not `narrowly tailored so as to infringe state sovereignty as minimally as possible,' its violation of state law [could] not be excused on the ground that it [was] necessary to rectify a violation of federal law." The court concluded that the unexcused state law violation rendered the consent judgment invalid and unenforceable. See also: Perkins v. City of Chicago Heights, 47 F.3d 212 (7th Cir. 1995). See also: League of Residential Neighborhood Advocates v. City of Los An- geles, 498 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). Postdeprivation Due Process —Administrative Agency Suspends Developer's Permits Without Hearing Agency claims that postdeprivation remedies were sufficient to satisfy constitutional due process Citation: San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. v. Acevedo -Vila, 2011 WL 2436607 (1st Cir. 2011) The United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit, has jurisdiction over Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island. FIRST CIRCUIT (PUERTO RICO) (06/17/11)—This case addressed the issue of whether postdeprivation (of due process) remedies were sufficient to meet the (constitutional) requirements of due process. The Background/Facts: In January, 2000, the Puerto Rico Planning Board approved a proposal from San Geronimo Caribe Project, Inc. ("San Geroni- mo") to develop the Paseo Caribe Project. The Paseo Caribe Project (the "Proj- ect") is a mixed residential, commercial, and tourism project located in San Juan, Puerto Rico. In July, 2000, San Geronimo purchased two parcels of land 4 © 2011 Thomson Reuters