Dave Donelson & Mike O'Malley Are Only Councilmembers Who Represent the People

Here's who opposed your right to vote on setting building height limits:

David Leinweber, Michelle Talarico, Yoland Avila, Randy Helms, Lynette Crow-Iverson and Brian Risley.  Note:  in the April 2023 Municipal Eleciton, Leinweber, Talarico, Crow-Iverson and Risley were run as the developer, HBA-endorsed, Gazette-endorsed, Suthers-endorsed candidates.  The odds of all of those endorsing the exact same candidates was:  1 in 62 billion!

Time to use your SUPERPOWER AND VOTE!  

A quick primer on property rights.  Yesterday, in a stunning display of developer power, Dave Donelson & Mike O'Malley were the only City Council representatives who understand for whom they work, the people.  Several of the candidates who were funded by developers in the April 2023 Municipal Election argued that "property rights" are why they don't want the people to vote on setting building height limits.  Councilmember Risley and Councilmember Crow-Iverson love to cite this reason.  What they really should be saying is "Developer Property Rights".  They truth is that owning property DOES NOT GUARANTEE A USE.  In fact there are 4 Supreme Court Cases in which the US Supreme Court enforces ordinances on building height limits.  Zoning is a police power to protect the public, health, safety and welfare of the people.

Those 4 legal cases where building height limits were upheld over the property rights of developers:

Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City (1978):

Overview: This landmark case involved the Penn Central Transportation Company, which wanted to build a skyscraper atop Grand Central Terminal. The New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission denied the proposal, citing the need to preserve the historical and architectural integrity of the terminal.

Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the city's decision, ruling that the restrictions did not constitute a "taking" of property without just compensation under the Fifth Amendment. The Court held that the restrictions were a legitimate exercise of the city's police power to promote the general welfare by preserving historic landmarks.
Significance: This case established that zoning laws and building height restrictions can be enforced to preserve historical and aesthetic values without violating property rights.

Goldblatt v. Hempstead (1962):

Overview: The town of Hempstead, New York, enacted an ordinance that restricted the height of buildings in certain areas to preserve the character of the neighborhood. The plaintiff, a developer, challenged the ordinance, arguing that it was an unreasonable restriction on property rights.

Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ordinance, ruling that it was a reasonable exercise of the town's police power. The Court emphasized that municipalities have broad authority to enact zoning regulations that promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the community.

Significance: This case reinforced the principle that building height restrictions can be a valid means of promoting community welfare and preserving neighborhood character.

Agins v. City of Tiburon (1980):

Overview: Property owners challenged the city of Tiburon's zoning ordinances, which limited the height and density of buildings to preserve open space and prevent overdevelopment. The property owners argued that the restrictions constituted a taking without just compensation.

Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the city, holding that the zoning ordinances substantially advanced legitimate state interests and did not deprive the property owners of all economically viable use of their land.

Significance: This case demonstrated that height and density restrictions can be justified to prevent overdevelopment and preserve open spaces, as long as the regulations do not render the property economically useless.

Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926):

Overview: This foundational case involved the Village of Euclid, Ohio, which implemented zoning laws that included building height restrictions. Ambler Realty Co. argued that these restrictions unreasonably limited the use of their property.

Ruling: The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the zoning laws, establishing the constitutionality of zoning as a valid exercise of the police power to protect public health, safety, and welfare.

Significance: Although not solely about building height, this case set a precedent for the validity of zoning regulations, including height restrictions, to manage urban development and land use.

These cases illustrate that courts have consistently upheld building height limits when they serve legitimate public purposes, such as preserving historical landmarks, maintaining neighborhood character, and promoting the general welfare.

In the developer game, it's play at your own risk.  A municipality has the police power to zone as the will of the people wishes.  Furthermore, setting a building height restriction does not limit a developer's ability to develop land.  The entire argument is disingenuous, at best.

Thank you for your support on this important issue.  While, in moments like these. people feel defeated and lose hope.  Don't.   You have the power.  Pay attention to who the developer-funded candidates are and vote accordingly.