Daily Development for Wednesday, July 18, 2007
by: Patrick A. Randolph, Jr.
Elmer F. Pierson Professor of Law
UMKC School of Law
Of Counsel: Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin
Kansas City, Missouri
dirt@umkc.edu
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; DUE PROCESS; TAKINGS; REGULATORY TAKINGS: City’s requiring connection of all new construction to city’s broadband telecommunications system is an unconstitutional taking.
Home Builders Ass’n v. City of Lebanon, 854 N.E.2d 1097 (Ohio App. 12 Dist. 2006), appeal den’d 854 N.E. 2d 1097 (8./2/06).
The City of Lebanon (the “City”) constructed a broadband telecommunications system (the “System”) to which homeowners could subscribe for computer, television or telephone communications. To connect to the service, the City would wire from the public right-of-way, across the private property to the exterior wall of the structure. Initially, the City also used the System for automated electric meter reading to approximately 200 homes but determined the service was too costly to install to additional homes.
In 2002, the City adopted an ordinance requiring all new construction to connect to the System and to pay a telecommunications connection fee (the “Ordinance”). In June 2002, Home Builder’s groups challenged the Ordinance on three major claims: (1) mandated connection to the System constituted a taking without just compensation; (2) the city’s action constituted abuse of the city’s corporate power; and (3) the ordinance violated the Homebuilders constitutional rights under Section 1983. The Homebuilders a sought a declaratory judgment that the Ordinance was unconstitutional, preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the city from enforcing the ordinance and attorneys’ fees.
The common pleas court ruled for the Homebuilders on the first claim - that the mandatory connection did constitute an unconstitutional taking. The court, however, found that the fee was enforceable provided that it was charged only to those requesting access to the System. On the second two claims, the common pleas court found for the City because the Homebuilders did not have taxpayer standing under the state law corporate action claim, and with regard to the Section 1983 claim, had not exhausted state law remedies.
The court dismissed all remaining claims of the parties, and the Homebuilders and the City appealed to the Court of Appeals of Ohio Twelfth District (the “Court”).
On the first claim of mandatory connection, the City in fact admitting that the extension of the connecting wire could constitute a taking under Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp 458 U.S. 419 (1982), but claimed that the Homebuilders effectively consented to the requirement when they requested electrical service and agreed to abide by the rules of the City’s electric department. The Court found that even though the wires are a small invasion, under Loretto any permanent occupation for which just compensation is not paid constitutes an unconstitutional taking. The Court found the Homebuilders did not consent because the City was using the System to read meters in only approximately 200 homes and the hope to use the System in the future was insufficient to find consent. In short, consent to electrical service was not consent to a hook-up to a telecommunications network.
Second, the City argued that the fee was wholly severable from the connection and thereby could still be assessed on all new construction. The Court found the court of common pleas correctly refused to sever the fee requirement based upon the Ohio Supreme Court’s three part test for severing partially unconstitutional laws: (i) whether provisions are capable of separation, (ii) the connection with the general scope of the whole, and (iii) whether insertion of words is necessary to separate the constitutional from the unconstitutional portion. The Court affirmed the court of common pleas holding that the fee was only partially severable - it could be assessed only as to those new units requesting a System connection.
The Court affirmed the denial of 1983 relief because the United States Supreme Court created a special rule for Section 1983 claims requiring exhaustion of state law remedies and in this case, the Homebuilders could have sought mandamus. Because the Homebuilders were not entitled to Section 1983 relief, the Court held they were not entitled to attorneys’ fees.
As to the issue of taxpayer standing, the court explained that to have taxpayer standing, a party’s aim must be to enforce a public right and not where the goal was the taxpayer’s own benefit. In this case, the Court found that the Homebuilder’s goal was sufficiently private and therefore upheld the finding of the court of common pleas. Judgment of the court of common pleas affirmed.
Comment 1: The City couldn’t just add the cost of the connection to other fees because it was related to a service that could only be provided through a wire that the City had no right to connect. It couldn’t claim it was a tax, presumably, because of uniformity of taxation requirements.
Comment 2: So, installing the wires is a taking. Then why doesn’t the City just compensate the homebuilders and go ahead with its installations? And why was the appropriate relief an injunction, which the court granted? As to the former, the City probably had the option to do this, but elected to forego the opportunity, since it couldn’t collect the fee from non-consenting homes. But would the required compensation for those itty bitty wires really amount to much?
Comment 3: Stepping back from this particular dispute - what exactly is going on here? Why is a city entering into this highly competitive area of telecommunication access? Certainly not because private industry is not providing the equivalent service. (Time Warner Cable attempted to intervene in the case but was denied standing.) And certainly not because there is a critical public need. The City wasn’t giving away its service, it was selling the service. Why should a municipal agency be able to flex its considerable tax free power to compete to provide service that it being readily provided through private sources? There’s a story here.
Items reported here and in the ABA publications
are for general information purposes only and
should not be relied upon in the course of
representation or in the forming of decisions in
legal matters. The same is true of all
commentary provided by contributors to the DIRT
list. Accuracy of data and opinions expressed
are the sole responsibility of the DIRT editor
and are in no sense the publication of the ABA.
Parties posting messages to DIRT are posting to a
source that is readily accessible by members of
the general public, and should take that fact
into account in evaluating confidentiality
issues.
ABOUT DIRT:
DIRT is an internet discussion group for serious
real estate professionals. Message volume varies,
but commonly runs 5 to 15 messages per work day.
Daily Developments are posted every work day. To
subscribe, send the message
subscribe Dirt [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription, send the message
signoff DIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
for information on other commands, send the message
Help to the listserv address.
DIRT has an alternate, more extensive coverage that includes not only
commercial and general real estate matters but also focuses specifically upon
residential real estate matters. Because real estate brokers generally find
this service more valuable, it is named “BrokerDIRT.” But residential
specialist attorneys, title insurers, lenders and others interested in the
residential market will want to subscribe to this alternative list. If you
subscribe to BrokerDIRT, it is not necessary also to subscribe to DIRT, as
BrokerDIRT carries all DIRT traffic in addition to the residential discussions.
To subscribe to BrokerDIRT, send the message
subscribe BrokerDIRT [your name]
to
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
To cancel your subscription to BrokerDIRT, send the message
signoff BrokerDIRT to the address:
listserv@listserv.umkc.edu
DIRT is a service of the American Bar Association
Section on Real Property, Probate & Trust Law and
the University of Missouri, Kansas City, School
of Law. Daily Developments are copyrighted by
Patrick A. Randolph, Jr., Professor of Law, UMKC
School of Law, but Professor Randolph grants
permission for copying or distribution of Daily
Developments for educational purposes, including
professional continuing education, provided that
no charge is imposed for such distribution and
that appropriate credit is given to Professor
Randolph, DIRT, and its sponsors.
DIRT has a WebPage at:
http://cctr.umkc.edu/dept/dirt/
*************************************
Your e-mail address will only be used within the ABA and its entities. We do not sell or rent e-mail addresses to anyone outside the ABA.
To change your e-mail address or remove your name from any future general distribution e-mails you can call us at 1-800-285-2221, or write to: American Bar Association, Service Center, 321 N Clark Street, Floor 16, Chicago, IL 60610
If you are an ABA member, log in to the ABA Web site at http://www.abanet.org/abanet/common/MyABA/home.cfm to edit your member profile. Otherwise, complete the form located at https://www.abanet.org/members/join/coa2.html
To review our privacy statement, go to http://www.abanet.org/privacy_statement.html.
If you have any problems, please contact the list owner at
dirt-dd-request@mail.abanet.org.