Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County
Decision Date | 16 July 1964 |
Docket Number | No. 10577,10577 |
Citation | 394 P.2d 182,144 Mont. 25 |
Parties | BILLINGS PROPERTIES, INC., Plaintiff and Appellant, v. YELLOWSTONE COUNTY et al., Defendants and Respondents. |
Court | Montana Supreme Court |
Sandall, Moses & Cavan, Billings, John P. Acher, Great Falls, James L. Sandall (argued), Billings, for appellant.
William J. Speare, County Atty., C. W. Jones, Deputy County Atty. (argued), Billings, Forrest H. Anderson, Helena, for respondent.
This is an appeal from a judgment of the district court of the thirteenth judicial district, in and for the County of Yellowstone, in favor of the defendants. Plaintiff, Billings Properties, Inc., a corporation, has brought this appeal.
This suit was brought under the Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act, Secs. 93-8901 et seq., R.C.M.1947, for the purpose of securing a judicial determination of the validity of section 11-602, subd. 9, R.C.M.1947, and the meaning of section 11-614, R.C.M.1947. The plaintiff below is a corporation which owns real estate in Yellowstone County and desires to subdivide property and sell the land in small tracts. The defendants are Yellowstone County, the individual Commissioners of said County constituting the Board of County Commissioners and the Billings-Yellowstone City-County Planning Board.
The cause was submitted to the court below upon an agreed statement of facts. Essentially, the facts are that the plaintiff, engaged in the business of subdividing and selling real property, caused a survey to be made, and plats prepared of certain described real property in Yellowstone County. These plats, referred to as Parcel B (containing 11.261 acres), and Parcel B (containing 1.252 acres), were prepared for the purpose of complying with sections 11-601, 11-608, 11-614 and 11-614.1, R.C.M.1947. Prior to commencing this action the plaintiff caused these plats to be filed in duplicate with the Planning Board and with the County Commissioners, together with a request for their approval. There was also submitted with said plats, an abstract of title to each plat, prepared and certified by a duly qualified abstracter. The abstracts were submitted to the office of the County Attorney of Yellowstone County, which office endorsed on the plats that the plaintiff was the owner in fee simple of the lands so platted. The plats conformed in all respects to the requirements of the Montana statutes, except that neither plat contained any dedication of land for parks and playground purposes as is required by section 11-602, subd. 9, R.C.M.1947.
On June 4, 1962, the Planning Board rejected both plats for the reason that no dedication of land was made therein for parks and playgrounds, and on June 15, 1962, the Board of County Commissioners rejected the plats for the same reason.
On June 20, 1962, the plaintiff brought its action in district court; the facts were stipulated to by the parties, and the matter was submitted on briefs. On January 10, 1963, the district court found that the statute in question did not contravene the provisions of section 14, Article III, of the Montana Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. The court also found that section 11-602 was not an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority in contravention to section 1, Article IV, of the Montana Constitution. Finally the court found that section 11-614 taken in connection with section 11-614.1 did not exempt the plaintiff from dedicating any land for park and playground purposes merely because it was a tract less than ten acres in area.
The plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as appellant) alleges five separate specifications of error, however, these can be resolved into three basic contentions, which will be handled separately. The first two relate to the constitutionality of section 11-602, subd. 9, and the third concerns the interpretation to be given to section 11-614.
Appellant's first contention is that the requirement that land must be dedicated to the public for park and playground purposes as a condition precedent to the approval of a subdivision plat is unconstitutional in that it is an exercise of the power of eminent domain without provision for compensation under the guise of the police power.
We will first discuss areas over ten acres and under twenty acres. The pertinent language of section 11-602, subd. 9, the statute in question, reads as follows:
This subdivision 9 of section 11-602, was passed as an amendment to the original statute in the Fifteenth Legislative Session in 1917. A check of the House and Senate Journals for that session reveals that it went through both houses with but one dissenting vote and that significantly enough was by the Senator from Yellowstone County. From that date until the present suit, there has never been a case even remotely questioning its constitutionality, however, that has no bearing on the ultimate question. Statutes requiring dedication of park and playground land as a condition precedent to the approval of plats are in force in one form or another in most all states. The question of their constitutionality on the ground that it amounts to a taking of property without compensation under the guise of the police power has not, to the best of our knowledge, been met head on. The cases cited in appellant's brief have not passed upon the constitutionality of these statutes on this particular ground as will be pointed out later in this opinion.
The task of deciding whether a statute is constitutional or not is not an easy one, due to the fact that the ultimate question of its constitutionality is oft times clouded by opinions as to the wisdom of the legislation. It is for this reason that we think that this rule has been laid down again and again:
State v. Gateway Mortuaries, Inc., 87 Mont. 225, 235, 287 P. 156, 158, 68 A.L.R. 1512.
Section 11-602, subd. 9, in effect requires a person who desires to subdivide and sell his property from approved plats to dedicate a portion thereof to the public for parks and playgrounds, without compensation therefor. The language of the statute obviously contemplates that this be done pursuant to the police power of the state.
The 'police power' of the State of Montana is contained in Article XV, Sec. 9, of the Constitution which states only that 'the police powers of the state shall never be abridged.' An exact definition of the phrase 'police power' is not only impossible but also impractical. As Mr. Justice Douglas stated in the case of Berman v. Parker 348 U.S. 26, 32, 75 S.Ct. 98, 102, 99 L.Ed. 27, concerning the definition of 'police power':
* * *
The exercise of the police power is gauged by a standard of reasonableness. In Bettey v. City of Sidney, 79 Mont. 314, 257 P. 1007, 56 A.L.R. 872, this court...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Howard County v. JJM, Inc.
...(park); Home Bldrs. Ass'n, etc. v. City of Kansas City, 555 S.W.2d 832 (Mo.1977) (en banc) (park); Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 33, 35, 394 P.2d 182 (1964) (park); Simpson v. City of North Platte, 206 Neb. 240, 245-46, 292 N.W.2d 297 (1980) (street); Robbin......
-
Dolan v. City of Tigard
...connection between the required dedication and the proposed development seem to suffice. See, e.g., Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964); Jenad, Inc. v. Scarsdale, 18 N.Y.2d 78, 271 N.Y.S.2d 955, 218 N.E.2d 673 (1966). We think this standard is ......
-
City of Annapolis v. Waterman
...Minn. 5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976); Home Builders Ass'n v. City of Kansas City, 555 S.W.2d 832 (Mo.1977); Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964); Bayswater Realty & Capital Corp. v. Planning Bd., 76 N.Y.2d 460, 560 N.Y.S.2d 623, 560 N.E.2d 1300 (1990);......
-
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission
...5, 246 N.W.2d 19 (1976); State ex rel. Noland v. St. Louis County, 478 S.W.2d 363 (Mo.1972); Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 33-36, 394 P.2d 182, 187-188 (1964); Simpson v. North Platte, 206 Neb. 240, 292 N.W.2d 297 (1980); Briar West, Inc. v. Lincoln, 206 Neb......
-
Land Development Conditions
...125 Wis. 2d 254, 371 N.W.2d 389 (Wis. Ct. App. 1985). 453. Id . at 256, 371 N.W.2d at 390-91. 454. Id . at 256-57, 371 N.W.2d at 391. 455. 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964). BARGAINING FOR DEVELOPMENT condition precedent to approval of the plat is not an unreasonable exercise of the police ......
-
Case List
...Roofing, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County , 788 So. 2d 365 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2001) Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County , 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964) Bixel Assocs. v. City of Los Angeles , 216 Cal. App. 3d 1208, 265 Cal. Rptr. 347 (1989) Black v. City of Killeen , 78 S.W......
-
The Regulatory Takings Battleground: Environmental Regulation of Land Versus Private-Property Rights
...the required dedication and the proposed development seem to suffice. See, e. g. , Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964); Jenad, Inc. v. Scarsdale, 18 N.Y.2d 78, 218 Chapter Five: The Regulatory Takings Battleground Page 393 N.E.2d 673, 271 N.Y.S......
-
Beware - the Supreme Court Further Restricts the Authority of Municipalities to Condition Development Approvals
...[FN23]. Id. at 2318. [FN24]. Id. [FN25]. Id. [FN26]. Id. at 2310-2319. In Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, et al., 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964), the Montana Supreme Court deferred to the county's legislative determination that the subdivision of 10 to 20 acre parcels cr......