The following excerpt is from Armendariz v. Penman, 75 F.3d 1311 (9th Cir. 1996):
The defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity against this equal protection claim because our precedent established well before 1991 that a city cannot make land-use decisions based simply on its own desire to acquire a private owner's property for purposes unrelated to the city's action. In Parks v. Watson, 716 F.2d 646 (9th Cir.1983), the plaintiffs were developers who needed a vacation of city streets in order to proceed with planned development. In the ensuing negotiations between the developers and the city regarding the developers' vacation petition, the city demanded that the developers dedicate a strip of their property to the city. From the city's perspective, the advantage of a dedication over an easement was that dedication would give the city rights
Page 1328
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.