Need help with the 3-page essay and one-page write-up. Looking to get it around a B average. If the PowerPoint is possible, please let me know I can increase the total.

1. Oral Presentation Each student will orally present a court case dealing with land use problem. Thus, you should prepare a power point presentation of your court case (add pictures, data, maps for clarification of land use problem). Each student will make a 5-7 minutes presentation and save the file as a Zoom video file. You will send this file to me as an attachment over Canvas assignment folder. It will be due the day you have signed up for the court case on the sign-up sheet. Each student will do the presentation.  2. One Page Summary (Sample posted) You will write a one-page summary like the sample posted on Canvas and send it to me the Friday when your court case is due for presentation.   3. Comprehensive Essay (Sample posted) You will write a comprehensive and well-articulated discussion of the court case in essay format. A sample copy of an example of court case essay has been posted on Canvas (week5) and assignment folder for perusal. You will write an essay on the selected court case in three pages for your assignment due on May 9, 2022 (like the sample provided). The court case essay in three pages is a more elaborate version, comprehensive and researched assignment. So be creative!  The Court case sign-up sheet has been posted on Canvas in Week 7 Module.   Format of one page summary: The format of the one page summary shall be as follows. · Introduction · The legal issue under consideration by the court · The opposing arguments · The court’s decision · The importance of the decision for land use regulation. · Any follow ups  The grade composition is as follows:     One Court Case: Grade Composition Oral Presentation  and 1page summary         2+1 percent Written Report (3 pages), 700-750 words 5 percent Total 8 percent

Euclidian Zoning? Imagine that you are a real estate investor with property outside the fast-growing city of Cleveland, Ohio.  You own 68 acres of land that you intend to sell to industrial companies in the small village of Euclid, a suburb of Cleveland.  Suddenly, in 1922, the village council adopts a new ordinance that establishes zones with limited and specific purposes allowed in each zone.  There were three aspects to these new zones of importance.  First, the village was divided into six classes of districts by use of the land which placed rules on the types of buildings that could be erected in that district.  Second, there were three height districts put into place as well which placed rules on (as you may have guessed) how many stories buildings were allowed to have in those districts.  Lastly, there were four classifications by area created which regulated the size of each building, as with number of rooms.    Rules, rules, rules…, and suddenly your potentially-industrial land falls into a district designated for other purposes, like residential, which prohibits industrial uses on the property.  You perceive a drop in land value as you can no longer sell to investors wanting to use the property for industrial purposes as you had planned.  You estimate that the sections of your land once-zoned industrial, but now classified residential were worth $10,000 and are now only sellable for $2500 (per acre) (Summary).  You did not have transactions in process or investors lined up yet, but you had plans, dreams, and intentions no longer permitted with the passing of this new zoning ordinance.  You have just met Ambler Realty company, the soon to be appellee in a court case that will determine how America grew, and still does, even today.  The appellant is the Village of Euclid who created these zoning regulations in the hopes that they could guide where development could occur.  Euclid was trying to protect people from public health and safety hazards.  For example, by reducing fire risk due to controlled development areas.    The suit started out in a lower court first where it was determined that the Village of Euclid’s zoning ordinance was unconstitutional because it constituted a taking of Ambler Realty’s property — a violation of the 14th amendment which prohibits denial of liberty and property without due process of law.  In 1926 it ended up in the Supreme Court, and the earlier court’s decision was reversed.  The Supreme Court thought that the zoning ordinance was not “an unreasonable extension of the village’s police power… and thus was not unconstitutional” (Amber).  Part of the reason they came to this decision is because the village was not prohibiting industrial development all together, but rather controlling where it went.  The Supreme Court also felt it did, in fact, protect the health and safety of the public by restricting the uses in such districts.  For example, providing better police and fire protection, and preventing noisy business establishments from becoming nuisances to residential neighborhoods.  Because the Supreme Court found that the zoning ordinance in the Village of Euclid was not unconstitutional it was allowed to continue and soon spread throughout many other places.  That building-block style of zoning you see all around you in small and large cities alike is called: Euclidian zoning.  The implications of this court case are far-

Sample  Thakur Page 2 of 3 reaching and led to numerous other cases involving what zoning regulations must encompass to be upheld and what constitutes a taking of land (eminent domain sound familiar to anyone?).  One example of what zoning regulations must encompass to be upheld came about in 1977 with the case of Moore v. City of East Cleveland, Ohio.  In this case, East Cleveland initiated a housing ordinance that “limited occupancy of a dwelling unit to members of a single family” and then went on to specify exactly what constituted “family”.  A grandmother and her two grandsons, under this ordinance did not qualify and became the appellants in this case.  Can you imagine an ordinance telling you who you can or cannot live with?  The Supreme Court could not imagine that either and so it determined the city was in violation of her 14th amendment right to liberty because the ordinance was unreasonable and did not relate to the protection of public health and safety.  Maybe this picture looks familiar, as you may have driven by it on your way in and out of Sacramento.  Currently this land is protected by the 1992 Delta Protection Act which preserves 500,000 acres (Young) from nonagricultural development.  However, the town of Clarksburg, 15 miles south of Sacramento wants to see houses put in to stimulate growth.  So far, the “Yolo County Board of Supervisors changed the property’s zoning and approved” a housing development project which “triggered two formal appeals to the Delta Protection Commission.”  (Young).  This issue has yet to be resolved and is a good example of how the zoning debate started by the village of Euclid and Ambler Realty continues to extend its reach, even to the year 2007 in California.