- Under Multnomah County proposal, Dorothy English could divide 22-acre parcel into 8 lots
By Todd Murphy
The Portland Tribune Jan 30, 2007 (2 Reader comments)
Multnomah County Chairman Ted Wheeler on Tuesday proposed that the county approve an expedited process that would allow 94-year-old Dorothy English to divide her 22 acres of property in the northwest corner of the county into eight buildable lots.
Wheeler's proposal - which will go before the county Board of Commissioners for approval at its Feb. 15 meeting - is the next and possibly final chapter to one of the more famous land-use disputes in the state during the last few years.
If approved and agreed to by English's lawyers, the proposal would save the county $1.15 million in compensation that it otherwise would need to pay English. English won the right to that compensation late last year after she filed suit in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
Because of her difficulty in dividing her Multnomah County land into smaller parcels, English became the chief petitioner of Measure 37, a property rights measure that voters approved in 2004.
Civil Action No. 88-1275
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10895
August 9, 1990, Decided
August 14, 1990, Filed
Deborah Harris, Esq., Irv Acklesberg, Esq., COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
ALL DEFTS EXCEPT ROBERT J. THOMPSON, David P. Bruton, Esq., Michael Kubacki, Esq., DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
JUDGES: Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd, United States District Judge.
OPINION BY: HUYETT
OPINION: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In this civil action, plaintiffs n1 allege that the means utilized by defendants n2 to allocate federal subsidies received pursuant to the Urban Mass Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §§ 1601-13, has a discriminatory impact upon the black community of Philadelphia in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. SEPTA has filed a motion for summary judgment, and oral argument was held on October 3, 1989. At the time of oral argument, it appeared that the parties wished to discuss an amicable resolution of this dispute. Therefore, I stayed disposition of SEPTA's motion for summary judgment pending the outcome of settlement negotiations. After several months, the parties advised that negotiations had proved unfruitful and sought disposition of the instant motion. For the reasons stated below, I will now grant SEPTA's motion for summary judgment. [*2]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
935 F.2d 1280; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 12485
February 1, 1991, Argued
May 29, 1991, Filed
RULES OF THE THIRD CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS MAY LIMIT CITATION TO UNPUBLISHED OPINIONS. PLEASE REFER TO THE RULES OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THIS CIRCUIT.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; (D.C. Civil No. 88-01275); District Judge: Hon. Daniel H. Huyett, 3rd.
JUDGES: Sloviter, Chief Judge, Nygaard, Circuit Judge, and Barry, District Judge. *
* Honorable Maryanne Trump Barry, United States District Judge for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation.
Sponsored by the Federal Transit Administration
LEGAL RESEARCH DIGEST
June 1997--Number 7
Subject Areas: IA Planning and Administration and IC Transportation Law
The Impact of Civil Rights Litigation Under Title VI and
Related Laws on Transit Decision Making
This report was prepared under TCRP Project J-5, "Legal Aspects of Transit and Intermodal Transportation
Programs," for which the Transportation Research Board is the agency coordinating the research. The report was
prepared by Sandra Van De Walle. James B. McDaniel, TRB Counsel for Legal Research Projects,
was the principal investigator and content editor.
The Impact of Civil Rights Litigation Under Title VI and Related Laws on Transit
By Sandra Van de Walle
New York, New York
N.J. plan for affordable housing is invalid
An appeals court ruled that the plan is unfair and based on flawed data.
By Troy Graham
Inquirer Staff Writer
A New Jersey appeals court threw out the state's plan for providing affordable housing to the poor yesterday, calling elements of the blueprint discriminatory and based on flawed data.
The court gave the Council on Affordable Housing, the agency that sets the state's rules, just six months to devise a new plan.
While housing advocates applauded the court's ruling, the decision means even more delays in the long-standing fight over the obligation that towns have to provide homes for low-income families.
The appellate court threw out a plan that was devised in 2004, five years after the previous plan expired.
Changing Skyline: Zoning board thumbs its nose at laws
By Inga Saffron
Inquirer Architecture Critic
In the marbled corridors of Philadelphia's government, he is often invoked by nickname, sotto voce, with a touch of grievance: Lord Auspitz. In the sunny hearing room, however, it's always Mr. Chairman.
The gentleman in question is David Auspitz, the powerful head of the city Zoning Board of Adjustment. When the voluble Auspitz likes a project, he's not shy about letting his colleagues know. Just recently, he gushed about the glassy 23-story Americana, a condo building proposed for Old City by Yaron Properties. Despite one member's warnings about allowing a high-rise in a historic neighborhood, the board gave the 268-foot tower a green light.
There's just one, not-so-little hitch: The legal height limit in Old City is 65 feet. It's been that way since 2003, when City Council passed, and Mayor Street signed, a law to control the incursion of skyscrapers into a neighborhood that includes Christ Church, Betsy Ross' house, and a rich collection of cast-iron buildings.