Fed. Hill Capital, LLC v. City of Providence
Citation | 227 A.3d 980 |
Decision Date | 27 May 2020 |
Docket Number | PC 16-808,No. 2018-114-Appeal.,2018-114-Appeal. |
Parties | FEDERAL HILL CAPITAL, LLC et al. v. CITY OF PROVIDENCE, BY AND THROUGH its Treasurer, James LOMBARDI, et al. |
Court | United States State Supreme Court of Rhode Island |
Jeffrey L. Levy, Esq., Charles D. Blackman, Esq., for Plaintiffs.
Megan Maciasz DiSanto, Esq., Lisa Dinerman, Esq., for Defendants.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
Does an amendment to a zoning ordinance which restricts the number of college students who may live together in single-family homes in certain residential areas in Providence violate the constitutional rights of owners of property or of college students who rent those properties? The plaintiffs, Federal Hill Capital, LLC, a real estate investment company, and four individuals who were college students and housemates leasing Federal Hill Capital's property located on Oakdale Street in the Elmhurst neighborhood at the time this lawsuit was brought, ask this Court to answer that question in the affirmative.1 However, because we are convinced that the challenged amendment to the City of Providence's zoning ordinance does not violate the plaintiffs' right to equal protection or due process under the Rhode Island Constitution, we affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.
In July 2015, the Providence City Council Committee on Ordinances held a public hearing to consider an amendment to the City's zoning ordinance that would regulate residences which house students. A plethora of correspondence was submitted to the City Council for its consideration on the issue. That correspondence reflected that community members were upset with the impact that student housing has had on their neighborhoods. For example, one Mt. Pleasant/Elmhurst community member wrote:
Another described what he termed "the recent and terrifying development of student-oriented landlords buying the single-family houses in parts of the neighborhood populated primarily by families." He explained:
And yet another explained that "the climate [of the neighborhood] has now changed once the owners convert one family homes to multiple dwellings." He explained that a home near his own home was "previously a one family home that has been converted to house multiple students" and that "[t]o accommodate the resident cars, a second driveway was installed" and "[t]here are regularly 8-10 cars parked at this location." That same community member also explained that, unfortunately:
Approximately eight weeks after the public hearing at which these and other concerns were aired, the City enacted Ordinance No. 455, the amendment at issue in this case (Amendment).2
That Amendment impacts the R-1A and R-1 zoning districts, districts that, as represented by counsel for the City of Providence, make up less than three square miles of the City, and that are "intended for neighborhoods of lower density residential development" and "for detached single-family dwellings of low density residential developments[,]" respectively. City of Providence Zoning Ordinance §§ 4-400(A), 4-400(B) (Dec. 24, 2014). The Amendment itself states: "In the R-1A and R-1 districts, a single-family dwelling, that is non-owner occupied, shall not be occupied by more than three college students." Id. at § 12-1202(L)(5). The Amendment defines a college student as an "individual enrolled as an undergraduate or graduate student at any university or college educational institution who commutes to a campus." Id. at § 2-201.
Some five months later, in February 2016, Federal Hill Capital, LLC, the owner of a single-family home at 15 Oakdale Street in the Elmhurst neighborhood, an R-1 district, and the four plaintiff-college students who were then renting the property3 (collectively Federal Hill Capital), filed a declaratory judgment action against the City in the Superior Court seeking to invalidate the Amendment, asserting that the City had violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Rhode Island Constitution.
In January 2017, the City filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, Federal Hill Capital objected and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. A justice of the Superior Court heard argument on the cross-motions and, in time, issued a comprehensive twenty-page written decision rejecting Federal Hill Capital's motion for summary judgment and granting the motion of the City of Providence. In that decision, the hearing justice determined that the appropriate level of review to adjudicate the Amendment's constitutionality was rational basis review, the least searching of all constitutional standards. Employing that standard, the hearing justice, after first remarking that the Amendment to some extent seemed "nonsensical," in the end determined that the effectiveness of the legislation was "at least debatable" and that she must therefore find it to be constitutional. Judgment entered in favor of the City, and Federal Hill Capital filed a timely appeal.
Before this Court, Federal Hill Capital asserts that the justice of the Superior Court erred in failing to apply a heightened level of review when she evaluated the constitutionality of the Amendment. Federal Hill Capital also argues that, even if the Amendment's constitutionality is properly scrutinized using rational basis review, the Amendment nonetheless fails to meet constitutional muster because it is not rationally related to a legitimate government interest.
The backdrop of this case presents us with a direct conflict between legitimate and competing interests. Longtime residents deserve quiet and peaceful neighborhoods in which to live and raise their families. On the other hand, investors are entitled to see a reasonable return on their capital and believe that, when they improve a home to make it lease-ready, they should not be punished for doing so. And, students often pursue the opportunity to further their education while residing with friends in an off-campus environment.
Recognizing these competing interests, we now delve into the issue of whether the Amendment before us violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of our state's constitution.4 In so doing, we must first emphasize that in this state—indeed, in this country—it is the legislatures, not the courts, that make the law. When a party challenges the constitutionality of a statute, the burden is on him or her to demonstrate that the enactment is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt. Gem Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. Rossi , 867 A.2d 796, 808 (R.I. 2005) ; cf. State v. Capone , 115 R.I. 426, 432, 347 A.2d 615, 619 (1975) (); State v. Lerner , 112 R.I. 62, 88, 308 A.2d 324, 340 (1973) ().
With these precepts in mind, and with the recognition that we review a grant of summary judgment de novo , we proceed to our legal analysis. See Narragansett Indian Tribe v. State , 110 A.3d 1160, 1162 (R.I. 2015).
Our first task is to determine the appropriate level of scrutiny the Court should employ as we pass on the constitutionality of the challenged Amendment. See In re Advisory from the Governor , 633 A.2d 664, 669 (R.I. 1993).5 "[W]here neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right is implicated, * * * the legislation properly is analyzed under a minimal-scrutiny test." Riley v. Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management , 941 A.2d 198, 206 (R.I. 2008). Under that test, commonly known as rational basis review, when evaluating the action against the equal protection guarantee of our constitution, "this Court will review the statute to [e]nsure that ‘a rational relationship exists between the provisions of the statute [or ordinance] and a legitimate state interest.’ " Id. (quoting Cherenzia v. Lynch , 847 A.2d 818, 825 (R.I. 2004) (brackets omitted)). Similarly, in evaluating the legislative action under substantive due process, the "plaintiff must show * * * ‘that the government's action was clearly arbitrary and unreasonable[.]’ " Cherenzia , 847 A.2d at 826 (quoting Brunelle v. Town of South Kingstown , 700 A.2d 1075, 1084 (R.I. 1997) ). Needless to say, if a rational nexus exists between the statute and a legitimate state interest, the law is not arbitrary. Therefore, if the legislative action satisfies the Equal Protection Clause under an appropriate application of rational basis review, it will also satisfy substantive due process. See In re Advisory from the Governor , 633 A.2d at 672 (); see also Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Company , 449 U.S. 456, 470 n.12, 101 S.Ct. 715, 66 L.Ed.2d 659 (1981) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Zab v. R.I. Dep't of Corrs.
...to prove that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt." Federal Hill Capital, LLC v. City of Providence by and through Lombardi, 227 A.3d 980, 985 n.6 (R.I. 2020). Rather, the burden shifts to "the state to demonstrate that the legislation was 'justified by a compelling government ......
-
Zab v. Rhode Island Department of Corrections
...longer on the challenger to prove that it is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt." Federal Hill Capital, LLC v. City of Providence by and through Lombardi , 227 A.3d 980, 985 n.6 (R.I. 2020). Rather, the burden shifts to "the state to demonstrate that the legislation was ‘justified b......
-
Patterson v. The Bonnet Shores Fire Dist.
...by the Fourteenth Amendment . . . in no way limit those protections Rhode Island citizens possess by nature of article 1, section 2.'" Id. at 988 (quoting Providence Union Local 958, AFL-CIO, AFT v. City Council of City of Providence, 888 A.2d 948, 956 (R.I. 2005)). Without losing sight of ......
-
29 Sylvan, LLC v. Town of Narragansett
...him or her to demonstrate that the enactment is unconstitutional beyond a reasonable doubt." Federal Hill Capital, LLC v. City of Providence, by and through Lombardi, 227 A.3d 980, 984 (R.I. 2020) (citing Gem Plumbing & Heating Co., Inc. v. Rossi, 867 A.2d 796, 808 (R.I. 2005)); see State v......