Source: Institute for Justice
The Institute for Justice is one of the few public interest law firms I follow, not only for their commitment to protecting civil liberties but also their occasional excursions into urban planning problems like challenging Urban Renewal 2.0 in Kelo vs. City of New London (a case they unsuccessfully litigated before SCOTUS) and Pleasant Ridge vs. City of Charlestown (which is still ongoing) as well their latest case challenging minimum parking ordinances in Pasadena, TX. IJ makes perhaps one of the best cases against minimum parking requirements. Aside from forcing developers and businesses to set aside land that could otherwise be used more efficiently as commercial space, minimum parking requirements give away one of the few value capture mechanisms cities have to maintain their infrastructure. However, IJ makes the case that since such ordinances are enforced as an unfunded mandate they violate the takings clause of the 5th amendment.
Azael’s dreams seemed to be coming true when he bought a storefront in his hometown of Pasadena, Texas, in the summer of 2021. But instead of welcoming his investment in his community, the city of Pasadena forbade Azael from opening. The reason? The City decided that he had to provide 28 parking spaces—a nearly sixfold increase from the five existing spaces at the storefront—just to open his business. Azael would never need this many spots for his shop, as he is a one-man operation that takes cars by appointment only. And installing the new spots would cost him at least $40,000—almost half the price of the property and more than he can possibly afford.
If you view the business from google maps, it is apparent that it is located within a mixed use development and is adjacent to single family homes. He would have to buy the lot on the right side of his business for an additional $30,000 to $40,000, which by his own estimates would only fit 17 additional parking spots, 6 short of the 23 the city requires for his business. He applied for a variance but was denied. Thus, the city has put him in a catch twenty-two where he would have to tear down the very structure he conducts business in to meet their minimum parking ordinance. This is a blatant violation of the 5th amendment taking clause incorporated into the 14th amendment.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.