Agenda - Planning Commission - 01/03/2019

Home

Zoning Bulletin December 10, 2018 I Volume 12 I Issue 23 Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no State shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1.) Here, Watson argued that his procedural due process rights were violated because he didn't receive advanced individual notice of the meeting at which the City approved the access road. As to substance, he argued that the Ordinance (as well as another later -adopted ordinance that authorized "the establishment of access roads in the City") was unconstitutionally vague. He also maintained that the access road would de- stroy his business and pose a public safety hazard because it would lead to congestion and traffic. Finding there were no material issues of fact in dispute, and deciding the matter based on the law alone, the district court issued summary judgment in favor of the City. Watson appealed. DECISION: Judgment of district court affirmed. The United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, held that Watson's procedural and due process claims failed because Watson had no property interest that was being deprived. The court explained that both procedural and substantive due process claims required Watson to show that he had a property interest that was being deprived. Specifically, explained the court, to establish a procedural due process violation under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983, Watson had to show: (1) that he had life, liberty, or property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) that he was deprived of this protected interest within the meaning of the Due Process Clause; and (3) that the City did not afford Watson adequate procedural rights prior to depriving him of his protected interest. In other words, the court said that to succeed on his substantive due process claim, Watson must show that an "arbitrary and capricious government action deprive[d] [him] of a constitutionally protected property interest." Watson had claimed he had property interests in the use and enjoyment of his property, the safe operation of his business, and in safe access to and from the car wash. The court acknowledged that those claimed property rights were, generally, recognized by courts, including: the right to acquire, use and dispose of property; the right to do business; and a private right of access, for the purpose of ingress and egress, from private property to a public road. However, the court found that Watson's property rights were not impacted under the facts of the case. The court found that the proposed access road sat entirely within the public right-of-way, which was "not Watson's property to use or enjoy." The court also found that the City had not imposed a regulation on Watson or limited his business operation. And, the court found that although the access road might make travel "inconvenient" for Watson and his custom- ers, it would not "substantially impair" their access to and from his business via the public right-of-way. In other words, the court concluded that "because the right-of-way [was] not part of Watson's property, and because any prop- erty interest he [did] have [would] not be deprived, Watson received all the process he was due through the general public notice of the [C]ity [C]ouncil meeting." Accordingly, the court concluded that Watson's procedural and substantive due process claims failed. © 2018 Thomson Reuters 11