Facts
- The City of Brighton enacted BCO § 18-59 to address unsafe structures, creating a rebuttable presumption that demolition is permissible when the cost to repair exceeds 100% of the structure’s “true cash value” as shown on tax assessment rolls before the structure became unsafe.
- City officials inspected three structures owned by Leon and Marilyn Bonner, determined they were unsafe, and concluded repair costs exceeded the structures’ assessed true cash value.
- Based on that determination and related code provisions, the City issued an order requiring demolition of the structures as public nuisances.
- The code provided a multi-step review process, including an administrative appeal to the Brighton City Council and further review in circuit court.
- The Bonners appealed to the City Council, which upheld the demolition orders, but they did not pursue the available circuit-court review; instead, they filed a separate lawsuit raising a facial constitutional challenge to the ordinance.
Issues
- Whether BCO § 18-59 facially violates substantive due process by permitting demolition under an “unreasonable-to-repair” presumption without granting an owner an automatic right to repair.
- Whether BCO § 18-59 and related procedures facially violate procedural due process by failing to provide constitutionally adequate process before demolition.
Decision
- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and upheld BCO § 18-59 against facial substantive and procedural due process challenges.
- On substantive due process, the court held the rebuttable presumption and cost/value threshold were reasonably related to the City’s legitimate interest in protecting health, safety, and welfare by abating dangerous and blighted structures.
- On procedural due process, the court held the ordinance provided constitutionally adequate process through notice, an administrative opportunity to contest the determination, and access to judicial review in circuit court.
- The case was remanded for entry of judgment in favor of the City.
Legal Principles
- Substantive due process and procedural due process protect different constitutional interests and require separate analyses; they should not be merged into a single “general due process” inquiry.
- Under rational-basis review for land-use and nuisance-abatement regulation, an ordinance is valid if it is reasonably related to a legitimate governmental purpose and is not arbitrary, capricious, or unreasonable.
- A rebuttable presumption tied to an objective cost-to-value metric may be a permissible means to identify structures suitable for demolition as nuisances, particularly where owners may attempt to overcome the presumption.
- Procedural due process in the unsafe-structure demolition context is satisfied, on a facial challenge, when the scheme provides notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before deprivation, together with a route to judicial review.
Conclusion
The court held that Brighton’s unsafe-structure ordinance was not facially unconstitutional because its demolition presumption was rationally related to public safety goals and its review framework provided notice, an opportunity to contest the demolition decision, and judicial review.