Dolan v. City of Tigard
512 U.S. 374 (1994)
Rule of Law:
When a municipality conditions a building permit on a landowner dedicating a portion of their property for public use, the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause requires the municipality to make an individualized determination that the required dedication is related both in nature and extent—a 'rough proportionality'—to the impact of the proposed development.
Facts:
- Florence Dolan owned a plumbing and electric supply store in the Central Business District of Tigard, Oregon.
- Her 1.67-acre property included a gravel parking lot and was bordered by Fanno Creek, which flowed through the southwestern corner of the lot.
- Dolan applied to the city for a permit to nearly double the size of her store and pave a 39-space parking lot.
- The City of Tigard's Community Development Code (CDC) required property owners in the floodplain of Fanno Creek to dedicate land for a greenway as part of the city's storm drainage management system.
- The CDC also required that new developments dedicate land for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway to relieve traffic congestion.
- Pursuant to the CDC, the Tigard City Planning Commission conditioned the approval of Dolan's permit on her dedicating the portion of her property within the 100-year floodplain for a public greenway and an additional 15-foot strip of land adjacent to it for a pedestrian/bicycle pathway.
- The total required dedication amounted to approximately 7,000 square feet, or 10% of Dolan's property.
Procedural Posture:
- Florence Dolan applied to the Tigard City Planning Commission for a permit to redevelop her property, which the Commission granted subject to land dedication conditions.
- Dolan's request for variances from the conditions was denied by the Commission, and this decision was approved by the Tigard City Council.
- Dolan appealed to the Oregon Land Use Board of Appeals (LUBA), which affirmed the city's decision.
- Dolan appealed to the Oregon Court of Appeals, which also affirmed.
- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the conditions were reasonably related to the impacts of the proposed development.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Oregon Supreme Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a city violate the Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause when it conditions a building permit on a landowner dedicating portions of their property for a public greenway and a pedestrian/bicycle path, without making an individualized determination that these dedications are roughly proportional to the specific impacts of the proposed development?
Opinions:
Majority - Chief Justice Rehnquist
Yes. A city violates the Takings Clause by conditioning a building permit on land dedications without demonstrating a 'rough proportionality' between the exactions and the projected impact of the development. Building on the 'essential nexus' test from Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, the Court established a two-part inquiry. First, a nexus must exist between the legitimate state interest and the permit condition. The Court found a nexus here between flood prevention and limiting floodplain development, and between reducing traffic congestion and providing a bicycle path. Second, the court must determine if the degree of the exaction is roughly proportional to the development's impact. Here, the city failed to meet its burden of making an 'individualized determination' to prove this proportionality. For the greenway, the city did not demonstrate why a public easement, which destroys the right to exclude, was necessary for flood control, as opposed to a private greenway. For the bicycle path, the city's finding that the path 'could offset some of the traffic demand' was too speculative; it needed to quantify its findings to show the exaction was reasonably related to the 435 additional daily trips the new store would generate.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
No. The city's conditions were a valid exercise of its land-use planning authority and should not be subject to the Court's newly invented 'rough proportionality' test. The majority incorrectly abandons the traditional presumption that land use regulations are constitutional and improperly shifts the burden of proof to the city. The Court should have focused on the impact to the entire parcel, not just the single 'strand' of the right to exclude. Development exactions are a form of business regulation, and the developer should bear the burden of proving that a concededly relevant condition is so grossly disproportionate as to be unreasonable. The city's findings were sufficient, as predictions about traffic impacts are inherently estimates, and the majority's demand for quantification invites federal courts to micromanage local zoning decisions, resurrecting a form of substantive due process analysis rejected decades ago.
Dissenting - Justice Souter
No. The Court's creation of a new 'rough proportionality' test is unnecessary because this case could and should have been decided under the existing 'essential nexus' test from Nollan. The city's justifications failed even that less demanding standard. There was no rational connection between the exaction of a public recreational easement and the stated goal of flood control. Similarly, the city's finding that the bicycle path 'could' offset traffic was too tenuous to satisfy the nexus requirement. By placing the burden of proof on the city, the Court departs from the usual presumption of constitutionality afforded to government actions under the police power.
Analysis:
This decision significantly heightened the level of scrutiny applied to development exactions under the Takings Clause. By introducing the 'rough proportionality' standard as a second prong to the Nollan 'essential nexus' test, the Court moved beyond a mere rational basis review. It placed an affirmative burden on municipalities to produce specific, individualized evidence justifying the extent of the property dedications they require. This ruling makes it more difficult for local governments to condition development permits on exactions, thereby strengthening the constitutional protections for property owners against uncompensated takings through regulation.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"