I previously mentioned that one distinction between the Eubank-Roberge line and the Salyer-Ball line is that the former group of cases involved challenges by enfranchised landowners who were subject to the districts' regulatory authority, whereas the latter cases involved challenges by nonlandowners who were not directly subject to the districts' coercive authority but sought the franchise on the grounds that the districts' activities affected them.
First, while cases like Salyer and Ball involved "one person, one vote" challenges brought by nonlandowners, the vast majority of litigation involving special assessments, particularly BIDs, has in fact been brought by landowners or business owners who voted against the creation of the district but were outvoted by a majority of their neighbors and thus forced to pay mandatory assessments against their will.
By contrast, the Salyer-Ball line involved challenges brought by nonlandowners who were not directly subject to the districts' power to coerce mandatory assessments.
The previous Section showed, however, that BIDs and special assessment districts have significant impacts on nonlandowners within their territories, impacts that are in fact qualitatively similar to the coercive effects of zoning regulations.
The Second Circuit recognized, however, that it was possible that "part of the cost of an assessment would be passed on to resident nonlandowners
"A community center came quickly to mind, as a conduit to offer opportunities to the out of work housewives, nonlandowners
, the uneducated, and the handicapped," he said.
and potentially nonlandowners
for their own valuations of land, and then
structure of citizenship (nonlandowners
, nonwhites, women, etc.).
In the Eubank-Roberge line, the plaintiffs were enfranchised landowners within the district whose land was subject to the district's regulatory powers, whereas in the Salyer-Ball-Kessler line, the plaintiffs were primarily nonlandowners
in the area who were not directly subject to the district's regulatory authority but nevertheless sought the franchise as a matter of equal protection, thus raising a "one person, one vote" issue.
(121) Because nonlandowners
do not have access to this feature, it is harder for nonlandowners
to inform residents of the governing social norms, and will correspondingly impact the rate of adherence.
As the voting franchise expanded to include many nonlandowners
, the practice of awarding a bonus was discontinued.
This solution may be pursuing a different notion of fairness, equating at least some landowners (those of the condemned property) with nonlandowners
, who share in general social benefits of a project but reap no enhanced land value.