The Contemporary Relevance of Golden v. Ramapo

By John R. Nolon

This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of one of the judiciary’s most important contributions to the nation’s land-use law. New York’s highest court decided Golden v. Ramapo in 1972. On November 9, 2002, the Government Law Center of Albany Law School, the Land Use Law Center of Pace University Law School, the National Law Journal, and the Section of State and Local Government Law will host a national conference on the case and its extraordinary contemporary relevance. Speakers include several of the nation’s leading land-use scholars, including Robert H. Freilich who created the Ramapo plan, many of the local officials and professionals involved in developing Ramapo’s precocious land-use strategy, and several attorneys and planners deeply involved in the development of sophisticated land-use strategies today. (Information about the conference may be obtained by calling the Land Use Law Center at 914/422-4262 or e-mailing amccoy@law.pace.edu.)

Between 1940 and 1968, Ramapo, located near New York City, experienced a population growth rate of 300%. In 1969, the town board adopted a number of land-use strategies that became known as a growth management program. Its inventions were sophisticated, controversial, and legally dubious. Ramapo’s land-use devices and the courts’ sanction of them are credited with accelerating the incipient growth management movement.

As a more basic matter, Ramapo’s investment in comprehensive planning put it solidly on the side of a debate emerging in the 1960s about the wisdom of adopting master plans in the majority of states where local governments have the option of doing so. Some advocates, even today, think local master plans unduly constrain local governments and are ineffective documents, not worth the high cost of preparing them. Others believe that land-use laws that conform to objectives contained in adopted master plans are highly successful in overcoming legal challenges. They strongly urge communities to adopt, and regularly update, truly comprehensive plans, backed up by detailed studies.

To implement its master plan, Ramapo adopted several amendments to its zoning ordinance. It also adopted a six-year capital budget and a capital plan for the following twelve years that committed the town to providing supportive infrastructure to all parts of the community over an eighteen-year period. No changes were made in the town’s zoning districts or in the land uses allowed in each district. Instead, residential subdivision was designated a new class of land use and prospective subdividers were required to obtain a special permit. The permit could not be issued unless a critical mass of infrastructure was in place to serve the subdivision, including roads, sewers, drainage, parks, and firehouses. This provision created a temporary suspension of the right to develop—similar to the effect of a development moratorium.

Further provisions of the Ramapo amendments softened the effect of the temporary restraint on development. Development of unsubdivided land was not prohibited, leaving all property owners some current land use. Variances could be provided to landowners who could show that their plans were “consistent” with the town’s strategy. A special permit could be obtained, “vesting” a landowner’s right to develop the parcel in the future when infrastructure is in place. Developers were permitted to provide infrastructure themselves to qualify for a special permit. A development easement acquisition commission was established to provide property tax relief to landowners not able to develop their parcels for several years.

New York’s highest court upheld Ramapo’s land-use amendments as being within the delegated authority of local governments and, in so doing, forecast clearly the following thirty years of land-use policy and litigation. Here is a brief checklist of the matters to be covered at the November 9 conference; these are the threads woven by the Town of Ramapo and the Golden court that have become the fabric of our modern land-use law:

The Importance of the Comprehensive Plan. Since sustaining Ramapo’s authority to invent growth control devices, the courts have sustained several other local inventions, in large part because they conform with a carefully prepared comprehensive plan.

Affordable Housing and the Exclusion of Growth: The Golden decision established the fundamental proposition that the rights of citizens in search of a place to live are bound up in the due process rights of developers who bring actions challenging the exclusionary effect of local zoning.

Regulatory Takings. In upholding Ramapo’s temporary restrictions on the right to develop, the Golden court anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court’s most recent regulatory takings decision: Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 122 S. Ct. 1465 (2002). Both courts held that property may not be segmented in time or estate for takings purposes, that benefits accrue to burdened property owners during moratoria, and that temporary suspensions of the right to develop can be in the public interest.

Total Takings. The measures adopted by the Town of Ramapo to mitigate the regulation’s effect on property owners (variances, vested right permits, limited as-of-right development, self-help options, and tax relief), anticipated the U.S. Supreme Court’s requirement that without such devices a per se taking may be found: Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992).

Exhaustion and Ripeness. In Golden, the court forecast the holding of Palazzolo v. Rhode Island, 533 U.S. 606 (2001), in which further applications for development approvals were deemed unnecessary for ripeness purposes when it is clear that the local board does not have the discretion, under the challenged ordinance, to approve the landowner’s application.

Role of the Courts. The Golden court deferred to the local legislative body’s findings, giving its regulations “the usual presumption of validity attending the exercise of the police power,” and placed the burden of proving the invalidity of local land-use legislation on the challenger. This pattern of deference has persisted ever since.

Localism. Despite its deferential attitude toward legislative bodies, the court was aggressive in pointing out the limits of localism and in urging the state legislature to realign land-use responsibilities. Ramapo’s plan of postponing development was called by the court “inherently suspect.” The court noted the “serious defects” in local control, “pronounced insularism,” and the importance of “communal and regional interdependence.” The court urged the state legislature to provide guidance to localities regarding regional growth matters, a challenge that a few states have accepted.

Ultra Vires. The central issue in Golden was whether the town had the power under its delegated authority to control growth. In reviewing the history of the adoption of zoning and land-use controls, such as subdivision regulation, the court concluded that municipalities have considerable room for invention, so long as their objective is to create a balanced and well-ordered community. This broad interpretation of local land-use authority has become a trend among courts nationally and has fueled a great expansion of local invention to deal with the problems of sprawl, the provision of infrastructure, the costs of development, and, recently, the protection of natural resources and the environment.

Conclusion

The Town of Ramapo blazed a bright trail of invention in the late 1960s. The Golden court sustained the town’s power to do so, if the end is a balanced community, and, for thirty years, local governments have been ever more bold in dealing with market pressures on local land use. They have virtually invented the field of local environmental law, are transferring development rights from one part of town to another, are providing zoning incentives to developers, creating overlay zones to protect watersheds or to stimulate traditional neighborhood development, adopting performance-based zoning ordinances, floating bonds to raise funds for the purchase of development rights, and creating a number of impressive intermunicipal land-use councils to achieve some sub-regional coherence.