Laserfiche WebLink
May 10, 2016 ( Volume 10 I Issue 9 Zoning Bulletin <br />with regard to the project. Moreover, in addition to that lack of causation, <br />the court noted that since the Simstads' Equal Protection claim failed to as- <br />sert that they were disadvantaged because of any suspect classification, <br />Kovachevich's actions in opposing the project be found not to violate their <br />equal protection rights as long as his actions were rationally based. The <br />court found that his opposition was rationally based as it was based on <br />concerns about wetlands, the number of entrances to the subdivision, and <br />adequacy of the street. <br />See also: Roger Whitmore'sAuto. Services, Inc. v. Lake County, Illinois, <br />424 F.3d 659, R.I. C.O. Bus. Disp. Guide (CCH) P 10941 (7th Cir. 2005). <br />See also: Radentz v. Marion County, 640 F.3d 754, 111 Fair Empl. Prac. <br />Cas. (BNA) 1676, 94 Empl. Prac. Dec. (CCH) P 44150 (7th Cir. 2011). <br />Case Note: <br />The Simstads had also alleged procedural errors by the district court. However, the <br />Seventh Circuit rejected those allegations. <br />Rezoning —After neighbors oppose <br />developer's request for rezone, City <br />denies rezone request <br />Developer argues city's denial was based on <br />opponents' discriminatory purpose in violation of <br />the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protection <br />Clause <br />Citation: Avenue 6E Investments, LLC v. City of Yuma, Ariz., 2016 WL <br />1169080 (9th Cir. 2016) <br />The Ninth Circuit has jurisdiction over Alaska, Arizona, California, <br />Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. <br />NINTH CIRCUIT (ARIZONA) (03/25/16)—This case addressed the is- <br />sue of whether, in violation of the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Protec- <br />tion Clause of the United States Constitution, a discriminatory purpose was <br />a motivating factor behind a city's decision to deny a zoning application. <br />The Background/Facts: Avenue E Investments, LLC and Saguaro <br />Desert Land, Inc. (the "Developers") sought to develop a "moderately <br />priced" housing project in Yuma, Arizona (the "City"). The property on <br />which the housing project was proposed was zoned "R-1-8." Such a zone <br />required the use of at least 8,000 square foot lots. Determining that the <br />development of the property with R-1-8 zoning was not financially feasible <br />"due to the collapse of the housing market and a corresponding difficulty in <br />4 © 2016 Thomson Reuters <br />