Agenda - Planning Commission - 02/02/2006

Home

,~ Z.B. December i0, 2005 -- Page 5 Equal Protection -- Homeowner claims that village is 'violating tights thrbtigh water system Village wants homeowner to connect to new system in back of his property Citation: Myers v. Village of AIger, U.S. District Courr for the Northern District of Ohio, Western Div., No. 3:05 CV 7278 (2005) OHIO (10/14/05)- Myers owned property in the village of Alger. Since 1990, the village was in the process of constructing a new water system to replace its 77-year-old network of water lines. Myers was served by the village's old water system via a line running underneath the street in front of his property. However, the village wanted Myers to connect to the new system in the alley behind his house. Myers claimed it would cost $2,000 to do so. Myers sued, claiming that the village was attempting to require him to tie into the new water system in the rear alley in retaliation for Myers' past per- sonal and political activities in the village. DECISION: Judgment in favor of the village. Tlae village did not violate Myers' equal protection rights. Myers had to show that the village intentionally treated him differently than others similarly situated and that there was ao rational basis for the differ- ence in treatment. However, Myers failed to show that, by requiring him to tie into the new water system at the back of his house in the alley, the village treated him any differently from others who Were similarly situated. Four neighbors on each side already had tied into the alley line, and many village residents affected by the water-pipe replacement project also fled into the new system in rear alleys. Moreover, while Myers and the village had a history of animosity, Myers did not show that the village's action was intentional or irrational. Plans called for the property to be served via the rear alley even before Myers moved into his home. The village's decision to pass an ordinance keeping the 1/ne in the alley was based on logistical advantages and an attempt to save costs. Finally, the decision was rational because by using the alley, the village avoided interfering with other utility pipes and having to tear up and replace the pavement. Therefore, there was no evidence that the village violated Myers' equal protection rights. see also: Stern v. Halligan, 158 F. 3d 729 (1998). see also: Coalition for Government Procurement v. Federal Prison Industries /nc., 365 F.3d 435 (2004). Renew online at www. quinlan, corn 2005 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is pronibited. For more information please call (817) 54~.-0048. 127