Parking Ass'n of Georgia, Inc. v. City of Atlanta
Court refused to review a challenge to Atlanta’s ordinance requiring 10% landscaped parking areas and one tree per eight spaces, leaving the rule in place and property owners without federal review of their takings claim.
Holding
The Court declined to review the Georgia court’s ruling upholding Atlanta’s parking-lot landscaping ordinance, leaving the lower-court decision intact and denying federal consideration of the property owners’ takings challenge.
Real-world impact
- Owners face significant compliance costs and reduced parking and advertising revenue.
- Atlanta’s ordinance remains in effect because the Supreme Court refused to review.
- Uncertainty persists about whether broad legislative rules trigger stricter takings review.
Topics
Summary
Background
A city council in Atlanta passed a rule forcing many existing surface parking lots to add landscaping equal to at least 10% of the paved area and to plant one tree for every eight parking spaces. The rule covers about 350 lots. Parking-lot owners say complying will cost about $12,500 per lot (roughly $4,375,000 total) and will reduce advertising income by about $1,636,000. The owners sued, arguing the rule is an uncompensated taking under the Fifth Amendment, but the state trial court and the Georgia Supreme Court ruled for the City.
Reasoning
The main question is whether the landscaping rule requires compensation because it takes private property or merely regulates it. The Georgia court upheld the ordinance under an earlier, more lenient test, saying the rule advances legitimate city interests and leaves owners with an economically viable use of their property. That court distinguished a different test from another decision (Dolan) by treating Atlanta’s action as a broad legislative decision rather than an individualized condition. Lower courts are split on whether Dolan’s stricter test applies to legislative acts, and the opinions quoted in this text show that courts have come out both ways.
Real world impact
Because the higher court declined review, the Georgia decision stands and the Atlanta landscaping rule remains in effect. Property owners must bear the estimated compliance costs and lost advertising and parking revenue unless changed by local or state action. The split in lower courts leaves uncertainty about when broad legislative rules must meet Dolan’s stricter proportionality test.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice O’Connor, dissented from the denial of review and said he would grant certiorari because the issue raises a substantial federal question and the lower courts are in conflict.
Opinions in this case
- 1.Opinion 9151383
- 2.Opinion 9151382
Questions, answered
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents). Try:
- “What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?”
- “How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?”
- “What are the practical implications of this ruling?”