We interrupt our regularly scheduled First Amendment programming to bring our readers some information about an upcoming American Planning Association webinar that may be of interest.  See below for information and how to register:

 

Webcast— Controlling the Local Impacts of Hydrofracking

June 7, 2017

1:00 p.m. – 2:30 p.m. EDT

CM 1.50
L 1.50

CLE 1.50 through Illinois State Bar

The Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association is pleased to host the upcoming webcast Controlling the Local Impacts of Hydrofracking on Wednesday, June 7, 2017 from 1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT.  Registration for individuals is $20 for PLD members and $45 for nonmembers. Registration for two or more people at one computer is $140.

Hydrofracking will occur in many states, but federal and state agencies will not regulate many of the adverse local impacts of unconventional gas exploration. On the other hand, local governments will, and without expert guidance may be inclined to prohibit the practice. Some states will respond to local bans by stripping local governments of their authority.

It is vital, therefore, to develop best practices for controlling unregulated local impacts and to deliver them effectively to local governments and leaders. This program will outline the regulatory framework, identify local impacts (positive and negative), and conclude with an exploration of strategies—including both regulatory and non-regulatory actions—that local governments can use to address those impacts.

Speakers include Jessica Bacher, Executive Director of the Land Use Law Center at Pace Law School and Joshua Galperin, a clinical lecturer and director in law at Yale Law School and the Environmental Law and Policy Program Director at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies.

Register here

Donation boxes in Oakland, California. Source: East Bay Express.

Yesterday, in a case that we have been following for the past year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a California federal district court’s denial of a motion for preliminary injunction in a case pertaining to unattended donation and collection boxes in Oakland.

The plaintiff, a nonprofit group called Recycle for Change, places donation and collection boxes around Oakland in order to obtain donated materials for the dual purpose of conserving environmental resources and raising funds for charity.  The city enacted an ordinance in 2015 to regulate unattended donation and collection boxes, which included a requirement that the property owner or operator of the boxes obtain a permit, produce a site plan, and carry at least $1 million in liability insurance.  The license fee established under the permitting scheme is $246 per year, and the initial application fee for the permit is $535.  The city’s regulations require maintenance of the boxes, place restrictions on the size and location of the boxes, and prohibit the placement of boxes within 1,000 feet of one another.

Recycle for Change sued Oakland on First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause grounds.  The district court denied the plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit Affirms Denial of Preliminary Injunction in Oakland Donation Box Case

Dairy cows at Ocheesee Creamery. Source: Institute for Justice.

Some questions probably never need to be answered, and the universe of such questions might include the question: “what exactly is skim milk?” In a decision that sheds light on the current state of the commercial speech doctrine—and which may provide some helpful guidance for our local government readers—the Eleventh Circuit additionally provides some good analysis of low-fat dairy products. Continue Reading What is Skim Milk? Eleventh Circuit Provides Some Insight in Commercial Speech Decision

Last week, the federal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a tattoo shop owner had standing to challenge Long Beach, California’s zoning regulations.  The regulations had the effect of precluding the owner from operating his business in Long Beach.

James Real, who owns a tattoo parlor in Huntington Beach, California, sought to open a tattoo parlor in Long Beach.  Long Beach’s zoning regulations do not allow tattoo parlors in most zoning districts in the city; require a conditional use permit for operation of a tattoo parlor; may not be located less than 1,000 feet from another tattoo shop, adult entertainment use, arcade, or tavern; and tattoo parlors’ business hours are strictly limited.  Real sought approval from the city to locate in one of three locations, but the city responded by informing Real that none of the locations allowed for a tattoo parlor.

Real filed suit under the First Amendment, alleging that his tattooing was First Amendment-protected activity, and that the city’s zoning regulations were not proper time, place, and manner regulations and constituted an unconstitutional prior restraint.  The district court held that Real did not have standing to challenge the zoning regulations because he had failed to apply for a conditional use permit. Continue Reading Ninth Circuit: Tattoo Parlor Owner Has Standing to Bring First Amendment Claims

An advertisement for the organization Keep Chicago Livable states that home sharing is a “fundamental right,” yet the district court disagreed that home sharing implicated First Amendment rights.

Two weeks ago, a federal court in Illinois denied a request for a preliminary injunction against the City of Chicago’s recently-enacted short-term rental ordinance.  In its order, the court determined that the ordinance, which seeks to regulate individuals’ rental of units on Internet-based services such as Airbnb, VRBO, or HomeAway, did not affect the plaintiffs’ First Amendment rights to free speech.  The decision marks an interesting constitutional development in continued efforts by local governments to regulate short-term rentals.

In summer 2016, Chicago enacted what it calls the “shared housing ordinance,” or SHO.  The SHO requires hosts of units available for short-term rent to register their housing units with the city prior to listing their units on any Internet-based services.  Airbnb, VRBO, HomeAway and other services are also required to register with the city.  As applied to individuals, the SHO imposes requirements on the services provided by the short-term rental, and also requires individuals to maintain guest registries, and post their licensing information at the unit. Continue Reading Chicago Short-Term Rental Ordinance Does Not Implicate First Amendment: Federal District Court

We take a break from our regularly-scheduled programming to make an announcement on behalf of the Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association regarding a topic that may be of interest to some of our readers in the land use and municipal law worlds…

Webcast— Drone Technology: Implications on Policymaking and Design of the Built Environment

March 13, 2017

12:30 – 2:00 PM EDT

CM 1.50
L 1.50

The Planning and Law Division of the American Planning Association is pleased to host the upcoming webcast Drone Technology: Implications on Policymaking and Design of the Built Environment on Monday, March 13, 2017 from 12:30 to 2:00 p.m. EDT. Registration for individuals is $20 for PLD members and $45 for nonmembers. Registration for two or more people at one computer is $140.

The educational objective of this course is to discuss the implications of emerging drone technology on city and town planning. Featuring specialists in the fields of law, urban design, and policymaking, this webinar will examine federal and local legislation pertaining to unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Drone operations raise several concerns for the public given their wide range of recreational and commercial current uses. We will discuss regulations pertaining to these issues and explore how future zoning regulations can best guide the use of drones in our built environment.

Speakers include Dwight Merriam, FAICP, of Robinson & Cole; Jordan Petersen, RLA, LEED AP, of ColeJenest & Stone; Timothy Yin, Director of Data and Privacy at Startup Policy Lab; and Daniel Bolin of Ancel Glink.

Since 2015, San Francisco, California, has attempted to regulate the sharing economy by allowing short-term rentals under certain conditions.  These conditions include requirements that the host register the premises with the city, and also that the host demonstrate proof of liability insurance, compliance with local codes, and payment of taxes.  The city later revised the ordinance to prohibit listing of short-term rentals on sites such as Airbnb without prior city registration.  The latter prohibition would impose potential liability on Airbnb, HomeAway, and other short-term rental websites that post listings without prior city registration.

In June 2016, Airbnb and HomeAway filed a lawsuit against San Francisco.  The city responded in August 2016 Continue Reading Court Denies Preliminary Injunction in San Francisco Airbnb Case

Late last month, the First Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court decision finding that a New Hampshire law prohibiting digital photography of completed election ballots violated the First Amendment.  In the case of Rideout v. Gardner, the court found that the law was not narrowly tailored to a significant governmental interest, and therefore failed intermediate scrutiny review.

The New Hampshire law in question was commonly referred to as the “ballot selfie” law, since it prohibited individuals from taking cell phone photographs of themselves with their completed ballots.  The law was a 21st century update of an earlier state law dating back to the late 1800s Continue Reading First Circuit Rejects New Hampshire “Ballot Selfie” Law

Paula Soto speaking before the Cambridge City Council. Source: Cambridge Day.

This post was authored by Otten Johnson summer law clerk Alex Gano.  Alex is a rising third-year law student at the University of Colorado Law School.

Last week, a federal magistrate judge in Boston denied a plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment against the City of Cambridge, Massachusetts, in a case involving a municipal ordinance and state law that (might) prohibit non-commercial leafletting of parked cars. The court held that the plaintiff’s case against the City was moot because the City had recently amended its ordinance to allow non-commercial leafletting on private property.  The court also considered and rejected the City’s motion to join the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to the case citing the Eleventh Amendment.  The order in Soto v. City of Cambridge acknowledges a circuit split over the constitutionality of laws banning non-commercial leafletting, but the court ultimately declined to weigh in on the controversy. Continue Reading Federal Court in Massachusetts Rejects First Amendment Leafletting Challenge