Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KyJim
I'll just interject a definitely inexpert observation here. When you get to zoning ordinance, variances, and appeals, layers of complexity increase. I hope one of the attorneys has a good grounding in zoning and property law.
|
It doesn't take a land use expert to argue that once a municipality (or other level of government entity) promulgates a law, that law must be applied and enforced equally, objectively and uniformly. Otherwise, the government entity runs afoul of the equal protection clause in the Constitution, and their actions become "arbitrary and capricious." I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect this is probably first year law school subject matter.
The summary of the claims in the complaint are (as stated above):
Quote:
There are 4 claims against Alameda County.
- Plaintiffs were denied Due Process (14th amend) by the actions of the county by violating their own appellate deadline rules.
- Plaintiffs were denied Equal Protection (14th amend) by the county accepting unreasonable measurements against similarly situated business who have been granted zoning variances.
- A Facial Challenge to the requirement that gun stores must be located at least 500 feet away from residential properties as such a rule violates the 2A RKBA.
- An As Applied Challenge to the same.
|
Note that the first two are based on the 14th amendment, so these don't require any special knowledge of land use law. The third is a simple challenge to enacting a land use law that contravenes a Constitutionally-guaranteed right. For the fourth, IANAL and I have no idea what an "as applied" challenge means.