Dolan v. City of Tigard

1994-06-24

Headline: Court narrows when cities can require landowners to give land for flood control and bike paths, reverses Oregon ruling, and requires a 'rough proportionality' connection between exactions and project impacts.

Holding: The Court held that a city may condition a development permit on land dedications only when an individualized 'rough proportionality' exists between the dedication's nature and extent and the development's projected impacts, and it reversed the Oregon court.

Real World Impact:

Limits cities from requiring land dedications without individualized justification.
Requires quantification tying dedications to specific development impacts.
Gives property owners stronger protection against broad, generalized exactions.

Topics: land use rules, property rights, floodplain management, bike and pedestrian paths

Summary

Background

Florence Dolan, who owns a plumbing and electrical supply store in Tigard, Oregon, sought to expand her store and pave a larger parking lot. Fanno Creek runs along her property and the city’s plans identified flooding and downtown traffic congestion as problems. Tigard approved her permit only if she dedicated about 7,000 square feet (roughly 10% of her lot) for floodplain greenway and a 15-foot strip for a pedestrian/bicycle path.

Reasoning

The Court first accepted that the city had legitimate public goals—flood control and traffic reduction—and that an “essential nexus” existed between those goals and limiting development in the floodplain. But the Justices went further than an earlier case (Nollan) and announced that cities must show a “rough proportionality” between the size and nature of a required dedication and the development’s projected impacts. That means an individualized finding that the dedication is related in both nature and extent to the problem created by the particular project. The Court found Tigard’s generalized findings inadequate: the city did not explain why public recreational access was needed for flood control, nor did it quantify how much the bike path would reduce vehicle trips.

Real world impact

The Court reversed the Oregon Supreme Court and sent the case back for further proceedings. Cities can still require dedications, but they must make specific, individualized showings tying the demanded land or easement to the expected harm from the particular development. Until such showings are made, governments must use formal condemnation or provide compensation if they obtain private land.

Dissents or concurrances

Justices Stevens and Souter dissented, warning the new rule unduly burdens municipal planning and arguing the record already supported the city’s decisions.