Supreme Court Land Use Opinion - the Midwestago Airport Authority - Assignment Example

The Midwestago Airport ity desires to expand the O’Hearn Airport by adding an additional runway. The runway, as projected in the development plans, would necessitate the usage of adjacent land, presently housing a cemetery sacred to the peoples of the St. Wiemerslage Teutonic Druid Church, as well as permits to dredge Lake Offterio for fill on which to build the extended runway, and permission from the Environmental Protection Agency to build lakeward of the “no build line.” The MAA proposes to move the cemetery presently located on the land in question, in the name of “compelling public interest,” amidst fierce opposition from the St. Wiemerslage Church whose parishioners believe the deceased must remain in their burial grounds for religious purposes. On the basis of the O’Hearn Modernization Act, the New Kiel Wissinois State District Court granted eminent domain to the MAA, awarding the cemetery to the MAA based on “compelling government interest” in the project, a ruling upheld by the Federal Appeals Court. The Church is appealing the decision, citing insufficient “essential nexus” and lack of “rough proportionality” with regards to the building project, claiming a violation of their constitutional rights to religious protection under the First Amendment. The Great Lakes Region denied the MMA permits for dredging, a decision upheld by the Federal District Court. The MAA is appealing the decision to deny the dredging permits, citing that the denial of the permits was arbitrary and capricious and requesting eminent domain over the cemetery grounds for the use of the prospective runway. Facts of the Case -The Midwestago Airport Authority (MAA), for the purposes of increasing flight capacity of the O’Hearn airport, is seeking to add a new runway, Runway 10 Center, to its airfield. The MAA contends that expansion of the airfield will serve the public interest by increasing air traffic in the region, thereby stimulating statewide economic development. -In order for the runway to be constructed, the MAA wishes to exercise eminent domain of the adjacent sacred St. Wiemerslage Teutonic Druid Cemetery, relocating the remains therein, utilizing the land thereof for the Runway 10 Center. -The St. Wiemerslage Teutonic Druid Church is vehemently opposed to the MAA seizure of the cemetery. The Church holds that the burial ground is sacred, maintaining that it is integral in their beliefs of the afterlife that the remains not be moved. -The Wissinios State District Court ruled that there was essential nexus based on compelling government interest to grant eminent domain to the MAA to move the cemetery, a decision upheld by the Federal Appeals Court—Seventh Circuit. -The MAA requires an exception under the Wissinois Coastal commission to extend the Runway 10 Center toward the coastline. The FAA’s Great Lakes Region administrative law judge (ALJ) denied the permit, a ruling appealed and later reversed by the Washington ALJ, which declared that there are sufficient justifiable economic development prospects to grant the permit to build lakeward of the “no build” line. -The MAA applied to the Great Lakes Region of the Army Corps of Engineers for a permit to dredge the bottom of Lake Offterio for the purposes of acquiring fill with which to build the extended runway. The permit was denied by the Great Lakes Region, a decision upheld by the Washington ALJ as well as the Midwestago Federal District Court, when appealed. -The MAA applied to the EPA for a Coastal Zone Management Act Permit, and was denied on the basis of projected flooding of the future runway, and insufficient testing of the equipment to be implemented, as well as prospective possible damage to the surrounding environment and habitat. -The MAA is appealing the decision to deny the dredging permit, claiming the decision was arbitrary and capricious, and seeking eminent domain over the cemetery land. The MAA is also challenging the decision to deny the Coastal Zone Management Act permit, on the basis that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. -The local residents of the region have demonstrated open disapproval of the prospected airport expansion with open protest and picketing of the site. -The Church requested, and was granted an injunction to halt the seizure of the Cemetary pending further proceedings -The Church maintains that granting eminent domain to the MAA is a violation of their religious rights, protected under the First Amendment. Facts and Holdings In the case of Euclid v. Ambler, the Court established precedent of zoning to prevent “nuisance” allowing that zoning to prevent unwanted urbanization of a rural area was within the police powers of the city. The Court determined that it was neither arbitrary nor irrational for the city of Euclid to establish zones wherein major industry and development were restrained to maintain the integrity and character of the community, denying “just compensation” to Ambler, who argued that said zoning diminished the value of their property within the zoning jurisdiction. In Berman v. Parker, the Court addressed the question of eminent domain with regard to blighted properties, ruling unanimously in favor of developing blighted city areas by granting eminent domain to seize property where the property itself was not blighted, rather was located in a greater blighted area that would benefit from its removal. In First Lutheran v. County of Los Angeles, the Court ascertained the impact of restrictive legislation upon property determined to be unsafe, where the appellant sought just compensation for the ordinance prohibiting the use of property in a flood plain. Nollan v. California ruled in favor of appellant, citing insufficient nexus supporting an ordinance calling for appropriation of a percentage of the Nollan’s property for public use. In Kelo v. City of New London, the Court, applying the term “public use” to include “public purpose,” granted eminent domain to the City of New London, in the name of economic development. With regards to the question of eminent domain, “essential nexus” must be determined between proposed and present use of property validating the transfer of property to the end of greater public interest. Dolan v. City of Tigard iterates the need for compelling state interest to legitimize seizure of land, where the question was uncompensated taking of property by allotting a requisite percentage of private property to public use. Lucas v. South Carolina raises the question of just compensation with regard to “harmful or noxious uses” of land where regulation deprives the landowner of any economically viable use of otherwise valuable property. “Clear and convincing evidence” of the economic benefits of development must be provided to ascertain the validity of land seizure and reallocation. Sovereign may not use the power of eminent domain to transfer private property from one party to another, even if just compensation is provided, unless there is compelling evidence that the transfer will grant future use toward the greater public benefit or to eliminate “harmful property use.” Dolan v. Tigard also addresses the question of uncompensated property seizure, with regard to the amount of land dedicated to public use in a prospective development, where appellant claimed that the “reasonable relationship” [between public use and private interests] had been substituted with the more rigorous “essential nexus” requisite when appropriating private land to public use. Court denied the claim, compelling the owner to appropriate 15% of proposed development to public use, a ruling later reversed by this Court. The MAA has appealed to the Court to 1) reverse the ruling of a lower court to deny permits for dredging Lake Offtario, 2) to reverse the ruling of a lower court to deny the MAA the Coastal Zone Management Permit, and 3) to grant eminent domain of an adjacent lot, citing economic development by way of the expansion of the O’Hearn airport as the justification for the proceedings. Operating under the authority of the O’Hearn Modernization Act, the MAA claims the authority to take any necessary and reasonable actions to enhance the economic development of the region. In turn, the St. Wienerslage Teutonic Druid Church has appealed to the Court to reverse the decision of a lower court to grant eminent domain of their sacred burial grounds to the MAA for use in the expansion of the O’Hearn airport, citing the First Amendment protection to practice their religion, claiming that the airport expansion does not provide sufficient nexus for public use to grant the seizure of the property for public use. As regards the 1st appeal, the MAA was denied dredging permits by the Great Lakes Region of the Army Corps of Engineers for the reason that excessive dredging has already taken place in the area, and continued dredging would provide an environmentally unsafe prospect in the area. The Federal District Court of Midwestago further posited that continued dredging of the area could lead to the extinction of the Lake Offterio amphipod, an endangered species. Furthermore environmental questions include prospective flooding of the planned runway, air and water quality control, preservation of natural habitat, and storm capacity of an artificial land-mass, extended over a body of water. The EPA of the Coastal Zone Management Act denied the Coastal Zone Management permit on the basis of insufficient testing of proposed structure to withstand natural disasters common to the area including flooding and typhoons. The EPA also cited the need for preservation of lakeside habitat for “delicate and irreplaceable” wildlife in the area, which would come to harm in the event of an airplane crashing on the runway. Lakeward expansion of the airport is, for these reasons, highly undesirable to local residents who have demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the project through open protest and lobbying. Of particular interest to the Court, is the question of granting to the MAA eminent domain of the adjacent property. Under authority of the O’Hearn Modernization Act, the MAA maintains that the adjacent property in question should be awarded for public use by way of increasing air travel and stimulating regional and State Commerce. It is of utmost importance to scrutinize the question of eminent domain in a historical as well as current context. Within the parameters of precedent, Berman v. Parker calls for eminent domain in the case of blighted regions in need of economic development, where the individual property in question need not be specifically blighted in order for the greater blighted region to benefit from its removal and development. The property the MAA seeks to acquire is neither blighted nor does it exist within a larger blighted region. Economic use of land is considered in Lucas v. South Carolina and First Lutheran v. Los Angeles, whence the economic use of property is restricted due to local legislation, the appellants claiming local ordinances are responsible for inhibiting the valuable use of their property. The ruling of the First Lutheran case established that just compensation be awarded when legislation inhibits use of property, even if said legislation is later revoked. The Lucas case raised the question of the actual value of a property in question with regards to the restriction of its use, determining that value remains in owning land, not restricting its use in the name of the public good. The MAA seeks to acquire land that is not presently being put to specifically economic use, and seeks to deprive the landowners of their property, not simply devote a portion of the property in the name of public use. In the case of Dolan v. the City of Tigard, the question was that of appropriating a portion of private property to public use as the contingency for the City to grant permits for building expansion, requiring the city to provide a justifiable relationship between the contingencies and public good. The O’Hearn airport is not demonstrated by the MAA to be in any financial or economic duress necessitating additional stimuli to operate successfully. Rather the MAA seeks to increase revenues and economic prospects in the general region, while the airport is functional and frequented regularly by flyers as it stands. The MAA, then, seeks to exercise eminent domain of the adjacent property to expand its economic capabilities, under the auspices of public interest, where the public has demonstrated clear opposition to the expansion by way of picketing the airport. The Church itself is interested in neither just compensation nor is it being asked to dedicate a regulated percentage of its land to public use. Rather the religious rights and protection of the church under the First Amendment to maintain their burial grounds undisturbed is the basis for appeal. Where the requisite for exercising eminent domain is determined by providing “clear and convincing evidence” that seized property will be appropriated to greater public use, the MAA fails to provide sufficient nexus to justify seizure of the Druid Cemetery to that end, considering the public use the Cemetery presently serves. The court may only grant eminent domain where the seizure appropriately serves a greater public purpose, and does not arbitrarily seize private property from one individual and grant it to another. The O’Hearn Modernization Act was implemented to allow for further development of the O’Hearn region, but fails to meet the criteria of statutes as determined by the Supreme Court, and reiterated in Larkin v. Grendel’s Den, which case specified that a statute [such as the O’Hearn Modernization Act] must have a secular legislative purpose, its principal or primary effect must neither advance nor inhibit religion, and, finally, must not foster “an excessive government entanglement with religion.” The Court finds that the seizure of the Cemetary belonging to the St. Wiemerslage Church would considerably inhibit the religious practices of the Congregation of the Church by removing the remains therein and relocating them. It is the belief of said Congregation that the maintenance of the Cemetery is integral in their ascension to the afterlife. The Court, facing vehement opposition by a religious faction, also risks unnecessary, excessive entanglement with said religion by ruling in favor of the MAA. Considering the environmental factors involved with proceeding with the proposed additional runway, the Court upholds the decision of the Environmental Protection Agency, upheld by the Federal District court, to deny the necessary permits to build the runway lakeward of the “no build line,” citing the need for preservation of lakeside habitat conditions. The Court also upholds the decision made by the Great Lakes Region Army Corps of Engineers, upheld by the Federal District Court to deny the permits necessary to dredge Lake Offterio to acquire the necessary fill to build the runway, citing possible extinction of an endangered species. The Court rules in favor of the St. Wiemerslage Teutonic Druid Church, denying the MAA eminent domain over the cemetery adjacent to the O’Hearn Airport, citing Euclid v. Ambler which prohibits unwanted urbanization of an area if said urbanization were to damage or corrupt the character of the neighborhood. The Cemetery has existed in its location for 150 years, has been maintained by the parishioners of the St. Wiemerslage Church for said time, and remains a site of deep religious importance to the aforementioned parishioners. The Cemetery is, arguably, already in public use. It is frequented weekly by the parishioners of the St. Wiemerslage Church, houses local habitat, does not infringe on the lakeside protection act, does not require exceptions to the clean air and water acts, and operates under the First Amendment protections to practice religion. The dissenting opinion argues that there is sufficient compelling State interest in expanding the airport, and that the needs of the relatively small group of parishioners do not outweigh the economic prospect of expansion. Read More