A Lay Interpretation: 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution – Equal Protection
The "Equal Protection" clause ends thus:
The first question to consider as related to Marco Island is thus: is there any component of the STRP that will benefit directly or indirectly anyone not subject to the special tax levied on SOME homeowners?
If the answer is yes, then the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution has apparently been violated.
If a component of the STRP goes to improving the sewage treatment plant for the benefit of all citizens and businesses – and not to just deal with the extra load (no pun intended), then the equal protection clause has been violated. If a component of the STRP goes to improving the roads beyond replacing them to their original status prior demolition, then the equal protection clause has been violated. If the STRP creates one new or improved anything – like a sidewalk – then the equal protection clause has been violated.
This clause of the U.S. constitution was enacted to address the disparity in treatment by the government that existed (and some argue still exist) between the races and sexes. Later, the courts started applying the tenet to any citizens that were disfavored in any way when contrasted with an equal class of citizens. And as such the courts started to consider taxation and special assessments.
In one tax case, the Supreme Court found that a community violated the equal protection clause when some homeowners’ taxes were computed differently than how other identical homeowners’ taxes were computed. In another case, the Supreme Court found that a community violated the equal protection clause when businesses had to pay for a road improvement through a special assessment but yet homeowners on the same street did not get assessed. There are quite many more such cases.
In the comments section to this post, there are two opinions that support the contention that the STRP does in fact violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the deciding insight and expression should be left to legal scholars and specialists such as the ACLU or a law research center.
The second question to consider is thus: given the state of the so called legal system, is there any merit to even consider pursuing the above noted position?
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
The first question to consider as related to Marco Island is thus: is there any component of the STRP that will benefit directly or indirectly anyone not subject to the special tax levied on SOME homeowners?
If the answer is yes, then the equal protection clause of the U.S. constitution has apparently been violated.
If a component of the STRP goes to improving the sewage treatment plant for the benefit of all citizens and businesses – and not to just deal with the extra load (no pun intended), then the equal protection clause has been violated. If a component of the STRP goes to improving the roads beyond replacing them to their original status prior demolition, then the equal protection clause has been violated. If the STRP creates one new or improved anything – like a sidewalk – then the equal protection clause has been violated.
This clause of the U.S. constitution was enacted to address the disparity in treatment by the government that existed (and some argue still exist) between the races and sexes. Later, the courts started applying the tenet to any citizens that were disfavored in any way when contrasted with an equal class of citizens. And as such the courts started to consider taxation and special assessments.
In one tax case, the Supreme Court found that a community violated the equal protection clause when some homeowners’ taxes were computed differently than how other identical homeowners’ taxes were computed. In another case, the Supreme Court found that a community violated the equal protection clause when businesses had to pay for a road improvement through a special assessment but yet homeowners on the same street did not get assessed. There are quite many more such cases.
In the comments section to this post, there are two opinions that support the contention that the STRP does in fact violated the equal protection clause of the U.S. Constitution. However, the deciding insight and expression should be left to legal scholars and specialists such as the ACLU or a law research center.
The second question to consider is thus: given the state of the so called legal system, is there any merit to even consider pursuing the above noted position?
posted by Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D. at
6:11 PM
|
Number of Comments: 1
CLICK HERE TO VIEW&POST COMMENTS
1 Comments:
REAL PROPERTY; TAXATION; ASSESSMENTS -- Assessing property owners for roads in industrial areas while paying for similar roads in residential area out of general revenues is impermissibly discriminatory. -- Gotham Park Associates v. Borough of Carlstadt, A-2679-01T2 (N.J. Super. App. Div. 2003), Unpublished; June 18, 2003: "Pursuant to two municipal ordinances, [a municipality] imposed a special assessment on properties in the industrial area of [the municipality] adjacent to the roads that were repaired." Two property owners challenged the assessments contending that they violated the Local Improvements Law. In addition, they claimed that the assessments "violated the equal protection clauses of the United States and New Jersey Constitutions because only commercial property owners were assessed for the road improvements and residential property owners were not." The lower court ruled that the commercial property owners "failed to overcome the presumption of correctness of the assessments even though they had attempted to show no increase in the value of their properties due to the road repair project." On the other hand, it found that the special assessment violated the equal protection clauses. On appeal, the municipality argued that the special assessment did not violate equal protection and that amendments to the Local Improvements Law validated the property owners' equal protection claims.
After the constitutional challenge, the lower court noted that the challenge was "based upon the idea that these property owners are a sub-class of industrial properties within [the municipality], which have been illegitimately discriminated against in terms of being made vulnerable to special assessments." Their claim was that non-industrial properties had "consistently and persistently and repeatedly been not subject to a special assessment." The evidence showed that where road improvements affected residential property, the municipality treated the appropriations as ones to be paid by general taxation, not by special assessment. Accordingly, the lower court found that there "appear[ed] to be a clear cleavage in treatment between industrial property and non-industrial property in [this particular] municipality" and that the municipality "didn't even try during the trial to make any dispute or bones about." The lower court understood that "a classification made by legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if it 'rationally related to a legitimate state interest'." Scouring the evidence, the lower court was "satisfied that the disparate treatment [was] unrelated to any legitimate end." The Appellate Division agreed with the lower court's ruling.
++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++
Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. County Commission of Webster County
Ruling from the U.S. Supreme Court:
Essentially the Court established that so long as adjustments in the assessments are accurate enough over a relatively short period of time to roughly equalize the differences in proportion of the tax burden between the assessments levied against a similarly situated class of property owners, the Equal Protection clause will be satisfied and the scheme of assessment upheld. The Court established further that the Equal Protection clause is not automatically violated by errors in state law or mistakes in valuation of property for purposes of taxation. In fact, the Allegheny Court found that the Equal Protection clause does not require immediate wholesale readjustment based upon the latest fluctuations of the real estate market. Ultimately, the test put forth by the Court in Allegheny concluded that the actual constitutional requirement is the achievement within a "seasonable time" of a "rough equality" in the treatment of similarly situated property owners.
The Court went on to find that the system of general readjustments of assessments employed by the Webster County assessor of "comparable" properties was neither prompt nor substantial enough to balance the inequalities established in the record before the Court. The Court found that the assessments in Webster county would not have come into equilibrium for approximately 500 years under the assessment scheme utilized by the assessor. This disparity was according to the Allegheny Court beyond the parameters of the test as formulated and applied.
By
Mario R. Sanchez, Ph.D., at Tuesday, October 17, 2006 6:16:00 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home