Laserfiche WebLink
40 <br /> <br />Page 8 -- December 10, 2002 Z.B. <br /> <br /> Sadeghian sued the city, alleging his property was a nonconforming use <br /> and didn't haYe to comply, with city ordinances, the denial of the. permit was an <br /> unconstitutional taking, and the denial was based on racial and religious dis- <br /> cr/mination. He also argued the city's.ordinances were invalid and violated his. <br /> due process fights. The city asked for judgment' without a trial. <br /> DECISION: Judgment granted to City. <br /> The' permit was properlY denied. .: <br /> On the nonconforminguse argument, Sadeghian had to prove his Use of the <br />land as a mobile home park existed before the city passed-the ordinance and <br />Continued to.ex/st after its eflactment. Sadeghian failed to. show anydocumen- <br />ration the mobile home park existed before the City ordinance was enacted'in <br />1968. He merely asserted the mobile home park "had been there for some <br />time" and "was in all.likelihood in existence before the adoption of'the Zoning <br />Ordinance." Without affidavits, documents, or other evidence proving the park's <br />existence before the ordinance became effective, Sadeghian coUtd not succeed <br />'on this claim. <br /> Sadeghian also' claimed the ordinance amounted to a constitutional taking <br />of his property. A land use-regulation was a taking if it denied a landowner <br />economically viable use of his land or did not advance a legitimate state inter- <br />est. However, Sadeghian again, failed to provJde documentation that the-city- <br />ordinance stripped the land o.f any beneficial value. Therefore, because the <br />land was not worth/ess without a mobile home permit and the city didn't.actu- <br />ally physically invade the land, the taking claim failed' as well. Fi2rther~ the <br />city's.ordinance requiring fzre hydrants; paved roads, and improved water lines <br />did advance a le~timate state interest improving public health and safety. <br />'" Sadeghian also asserted the city dischrninated ~igainst him because of his <br />race and religion. As evidence of dlscrimination,.Sadeghi'an offered proof many <br />of the residents of his mobile home were minorities. However, this fact alone <br />· did not prove the city purposely' discriminated against h~rn. The fact many <br />residents were minorities-did' not prove the city ever. considered the race of the- <br /> residents when it rejected the mobile home park Permit. '..' ',' <br /> Finally, Sadeghian claimed the city's ordinances were arbitrary and capri- <br /> cious' and thus violated his due process fights. To prove the ordinance'was not <br /> 'arbitrary and capricious, the city only had.to show it was rationally related to a <br /> legitimate government purpose. As.stated abo~e, the ordinance was enacted <br /> for the purpose of promoting safety, health, and .welfare for the city's citizens. <br />· Accordingly, the due process claim failed as well. <br /> Citation.'· Sadeghian v. City Of Aubre~ Texas, U:S. DistriCt Court for the <br /> Northern District of Texas, Dallas Div.'~ No. 3 { 00-cV-2561 :N (2002). <br /> see also: Fontenot v. Upjohn, 780 F. 2d 1190 ('1986). <br /> see also: Schafer v: City of New Orleans, 743 F. 2d 1086 (1984),. <br /> <br />[ Now RENEW your subscription ONLINE at www. quinlan.com <br /> <br /> <br />