2014 CO 37
Colo.2014Background
- In 2009, Dillon enacted two ordinances: a road project and parking restrictions on rights-of-way near the Yacht Club Condos.
- YCC owners sued, arguing police-power abuse and due-process violation due to loss of overflow parking.
- Trial court found abuse of police power and equitable estoppel; court of appeals affirmed in an unpublished decision.
- Ordinances aimed to improve traffic safety, drainage, and complete a missing recreation path; town police posted no-parking near YCC.
- YCC had long used town rights-of-way for overflow and tandem parking; no prior formal banning before 2009.
- Colorado Supreme Court held the ordinances did not constitute police-power abuse and remanded for other issues to be reviewed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Reasonableness of relationship between ordinances and objectives | YCC contends no reasonable relationship to safety, drainage, or path completion. | Town's ordinances reasonably relate to traffic safety, drainage, and recreation-path completion. | Ordinances reasonably related to legitimate government objectives; not an abuse. |
| Goldblatt test applicability | Lower courts used Goldblatt factors to condemn police power. | Goldblatt framework outdated; modern due-process/takings jurisprudence governs. | Goldblatt test rejected; apply current due-process takings jurisprudence. |
| Scope of police-power review | Burden on YCC and availability of lesser burdensome alternatives should be considered. | Reasonableness is judged by relationship to objectives, not burden or alternatives. | Reasonableness upheld; focus on relation to public-health/safety goals, not burden magnitude. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goldblatt v. Town of Hempstead, 369 U.S. 590 (1962) (testify on police power reasonableness later deemed unhelpful)
- Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 255 (1980) (regulatory takings/due process interplay)
- Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc., 544 U.S. 528 (2005) (separates due process and takings inquiries; clarifies test)
- Penn Cent. Transp. Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978) (early articulation of substantial relation to public health/safety)
- City & County of Denver v. Thrailkill, 125 Colo. 488 (1952) (requires real and substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare)