Center for Powell Crossing, LLC v. City of Powell, 173 F. Supp. 3d 639

Background

Powell Crossing bought an 8.3-acre Downtown Business District parcel and obtained City Council approval (Ordinance 2014-10) for a mixed-use final development plan (64 apartments + retail).
Petitioners circulated an initiative/charter-amendment petition that (1) created a five-member private citizens’ commission to draft a binding new comprehensive plan banning high-density housing downtown and (2) declared Ordinance 2014-10 incompatible and barred reliance on it; signatures validated and the measure placed on the Nov. 2014 ballot by order of the Ohio Supreme Court.
The Charter Amendment passed; it prohibited high-density housing in the Downtown Business District and effectively nullified Powell Crossing’s approved plan and barred development in reliance on Ordinance 2014-10.
Powell Crossing sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 asserting procedural and substantive due process, vagueness, unlawful delegation, equal protection, and bill-of-attainder theories; it also challenged the Amendment under Article II, § 1f of the Ohio Constitution (initiative/referendum limits).
The district court concluded (1) Powell Crossing had a vested property interest once City Council approved the final plan; (2) the process provided (notice, City Council hearing, state-court review) satisfied procedural due process; (3) the Charter Amendment’s delegation to a private five-member commission lacked standards and unlawfully delegated legislative power; (4) the Amendment was not a bill of attainder and did not violate substantive due process or equal protection; and (5) the Amendment violated Ohio Const. Art. II, § 1f by functioning as a referendum on an administrative ordinance. The court invalidated the Charter Amendment and granted permanent injunctive relief (severing and preserving the portion nullifying Ordinance 2014-10 was discussed but the court invalidated the Amendment in entirety while noting severability analysis).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did Powell Crossing have a protected property interest in the approved Final Development Plan?	Powell Crossing: approval vested entitlement to build; right protected once applications progressed.	City: preliminary approvals are discretionary; no entitlement until final binding action.	Held: vested when City Council approved the Final Development Plan; Council’s approval created a protected property interest.
Was Powell Crossing denied procedural due process when voters adopted the Charter Amendment that nullified the plan?	Powell Crossing: voters (and Board/Council action) deprived it of property without adequate predeprivation process; review was futile.	City: Powell Crossing received notice, presented briefs, had Council hearing and Ohio Supreme Court review; procedure adequate.	Held: No procedural due process violation — Powell Crossing had meaningful opportunity to be heard (Council hearing and state-court review).
Does the Charter Amendment unlawfully delegate legislative authority to private citizens?	Powell Crossing: the Amendment vests binding legislative power in a five-member private commission without discernible standards.	Petitioners/City: Commission is advisory; Council will adopt or adjust plan.	Held: Unlawful delegation — the Amendment makes the commission the effective decisionmaker and lacks standards; violates Due Process.
Does the Charter Amendment violate Ohio Const. Art. II, § 1f (initiative/referendum limited to legislative questions)?	Powell Crossing: The Amendment functioned as a referendum on an administrative ordinance (Ordinance 2014-10) which § 1f forbids.	Petitioners: Charter amendment procedure (Art. XVIII § 9) governs and permits the ballot measure.	Held: The Amendment effectively subjected an administrative action (approval of final development plan) to the initiative/referendum — unlawful under Ohio Art. II, § 1f; state-law claim sustained.

Key Cases Cited

Forest City Enters., Inc. v. City of Eastlake, 426 U.S. 668 (1976) (addresses limits on delegation/role of referendum in zoning and standardless private delegations)
Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found. v. City of Cuyahoga Falls, 538 U.S. 188 (2003) (federal treatment of referendum on site-plan ordinances; legislative/administrative distinction not dispositive for federal due process)
Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992) (regulatory takings test: total deprivation of economically beneficial use)
Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (clarifies that substantive due process is not a substitute for Takings Clause challenges)
Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981) (random/unauthorized deprivations and post-deprivation remedy framework)
Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984) (limits Parratt; context where predeprivation process impracticable)
Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113 (1990) (distinguishes Parratt where predeprivation procedures are available and deprivations occur at predictable times)
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S. 1 (1974) (zoning regulation rational-basis relation to public welfare)
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) (foundational case upholding zoning under police power)
Eubank v. Richmond, 226 U.S. 137 (1912) (invalidating private delegations that allow property owners to control others without standards)