|
<br />00231z3
<br />
<br />71
<br />
<br />97
<br />1~~ For an excellent discussion of the rationale underlying
<br />.;'W'valid subdivision requirements see Johnsop, Constitutionality
<br />of Subdivision Control ExactionS:- The Qu~st for a Rationale,
<br />52 cOllli. L. QUART. 871 (1967). Mr. John$on concludes that .
<br />the reasoning of the \'1isconsin Court in Jordan v. Village of
<br />Menomonee Falls, 28 wis. 2d 608, 137 N.W.'2d 442 (1965).
<br />appeal dismissed, 385 U.S. 4 (1966) offers' the mostsatis-
<br />faotory rationale for subdivision exaotions. In this case
<br />the court stated that exa~tions are valid only if a rational
<br />relationship can be shown between the exactions and the public
<br />needs gene:::"ated by the subdivision' development. See also .
<br />Hanna, Subdiv).sions:' Conditions Imposed by Local Government,
<br />6 SANTA-cLARA LAIVYER172 (1966); Comment, Al100ating the Burden
<br />of Increased Community Costs Caused by New Developments, 1967 L.
<br />FORUM 318.
<br />
<br />9 OSee Kelber v. Upland, 155 CaL App. 2d 631, 318 P.2d 561 (1957)
<br />(drainage fee not authorized). See also Gordon v. Wayne, 370
<br />Mioh. 329,121 N.W.2d 823 (1963) (fee for parks not authorized).
<br />
<br />99Kelber v. Upland; 155 Cal. App. 2d 631, 318 P.2d 561 (1957).
<br />
<br />IDDcity of Buena Park v. Boyar, 186 Cal. App. 2d 61, 8 Cal. Rpt:c.
<br />674 (1960).
<br />
<br />l"OlE..g., St"ailcO v. -Suo~ii. 11 M.i.sc~ '20 704,. -~.?!. !'l~Y.~. 2.:!. S?7
<br />(1958) (sewer fund) ; Genad, Inc. v. Scarsdale, 18 N.Y. 2d
<br />78,271 N,Y.S. 2d 955,218 N.E.2d 673 (1966) (fee for parks);
<br />Jordan v. Village of YJenomonee Palls, 28 Wis. 2d 608, .137 .
<br />N.W.2d 442 (1965), appeal dis;nissed, 385 U.S. 4 (1966) (upheld
<br />fee for park and scl10011ands"); bldt. ~,GlJlest Associates, Inc.
<br />v. Town of Newburgh, 25 Misc. 2d 1004, 209 N.Y.S.2d 729 (Sup.
<br />Ct. Orange Coun'cy 1960), aff'd., 15 Al?P. Div.2d 815, 225 N.Y.S.2.d
<br />538 (1962) (held invalid fee for parks) .
<br />
<br />IHSee CAL, BUS. & PRO. CODE 911543.5 (West. Supp. 1970).
<br />
<br />IDSSee,e.g., Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 2d
<br />31, 207 p.2d 1 (1949); pioneer Trust and Savings Bank v. Village
<br />of. Mount Prospeot 22 Ill. 2d 375,176 N.E.2d 799 (1961); State
<br />v. City Council of Minneapolis, 140 Minn. 433, 168 N.W. 188
<br />(1918) .
<br />
<br />I04E.g.,ILL. ANN. STAT. oh. 24, 911-12-5 (Smith-Hurd 1962); WIS.
<br />STAT. ANN. 9236.45(1) (1957).
<br />
<br />.10Ssee generally, 3 P,NDERSON 919.39 at 481 and cases cited therein;
<br />Note, Subdivision Control Requirement for Park Land, 12 SYRA-
<br />CUSE L.,REV. 224 (1961).
<br />
<br />I06Forcases upholding such requirements see e.g., Aunt Hack
<br />. Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Planning Comm 'n. of Danbury, 27 Conn.
<br />Supp. 74,230 A.2d 45 (1967); Billings Properties, Inc. v.
<br />Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 394 P.2d 182 (1964).
<br />
<br />
|