Kamman Inc v. City of Hewitt ( 2001 )


Menu:
  •                 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
    No. 01-50386
    Summary Calendar
    KAMMAN INC.,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    CITY OF HEWITT,
    Defendant-Appellee.
    - - - - - - - - - -
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Western District of Texas
    USDC No. W-00-CV-78
    - - - - - - - - - -
    December 21, 2001
    Before DeMOSS, PARKER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Kamman Inc. (Kamman) appeals the district court’s summary
    judgment in favor of the City of Hewitt (the City) on each of its
    takings or inverse condemnation claims, i.e., that there was a
    regulatory taking without just compensation, that its substantive
    due process rights were violated, and that its equal protection
    rights were violated when the City denied its request to rezone a
    parcel of land by changing its designation from residential to
    commercial.    A grant of summary judgment is appropriate “if the
    pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
    admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
    this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
    under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
    No. 01-50386
    -2-
    that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
    the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
    In order to establish a regulatory taking or inverse
    condemnation, a landowner must show (1) that the application of
    the zoning ordinance to the particular property does not substan-
    tially advance legitimate state interests or (2) that it deprives
    an owner of all economically viable use of his land.    Agins v.
    City of Tiburon, 
    447 U.S. 255
    , 260 (1980); Mayhew v. Town of
    Sunnyvale, 
    964 S.W.2d 922
    , 933-34 (Tex. 1998), cert. denied, 
    526 U.S. 1144
    , 
    119 S. Ct. 2018
    , 
    143 L. Ed. 2d 1030
    (1999).    Kamman does
    not assert that it has been deprived of all economically viable
    use of its land, nor does it dispute that traffic is a concern at
    the intersection where its property is located.   Kamman asserts
    that the district court failed to analyze whether the City
    substantially advanced solving the traffic problem at the
    intersection by refusing to rezone the property at issue.     This
    argument is meritless.   Controlling traffic growth substantially
    advances legitimate state interests.   See Village of Euclid v.
    Ambler Realty Co., 
    272 U.S. 365
    , 394-95 (1926).   Moreover,
    Kamman’s argument is an attempt to challenge the quantity and
    quality of data underlying the city engineer’s advice, as well as
    the wisdom of the City Council’s decision to deny its rezoning
    request, none of which is appropriate for judicial inquiry.     See
    Berman v. Parker, 
    348 U.S. 26
    , 31-33, 35-36 (1954); Reid v.
    Rolling Fork Public Utility Dist., 
    854 F.2d 751
    , 753 (5th Cir.
    No. 01-50386
    -3-
    1988); Shelton v. City of College Station, 
    780 F.2d 475
    , 480-81
    (5th Cir. 1986)(en banc).
    As for Kamman’s substantive due process claim, a state’s
    zoning decisions must have a rational basis.     Jackson Court
    Condominiums v. City of New Orleans, 
    874 F.2d 1070
    , 1077 (5th
    Cir. 1989).   The key to such an inquiry is whether the question
    is "at least debatable."    
    Id. Traffic control
    is a legitimate
    objective of a zoning regulation or decision.    The City was
    concerned that the increased traffic resulting from a commercial
    establishment on Kamman’s property would increase the potential
    for accidents at an already dangerous intersection.     This was a
    legitimate concern of the city.    The City’s denial of Kamman’s
    rezoning request had a rational basis and thus reaches the
    threshold established for substantive due process.     See 
    id. at 1078.
    Kamman’s equal protection argument echoes his substantive
    due process claim and adds that it was treated differently from
    two landowners who have corner lots zoned commercial at the same
    intersection.   When there is no fundamental right or suspect
    classification involved, the applicable standard of review for
    both equal protection and substantive due process claims is
    rational basis.   Jackson Court 
    Condominiums, 874 F.2d at 1079
    ;
    
    Reid, 854 F.2d at 753
    .   As already noted, the City’s concern that
    increased traffic at the intersection would be unduly hazardous
    had a rational basis in the city engineer’s opinion and therefore
    was “at least debatable.”   See Jackson Court 
    Condominiums, 874 F.2d at 1079
    .   Under-inclusivity alone, i.e., failure to make the
    No. 01-50386
    -4-
    other corners of the intersection residential, is not sufficient
    to state an equal protection claim.     
    Id. Kamman’s equal
    protection argument is without merit.
    AFFIRMED.