The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear the case of a Florida entrepreneur who claimed that his First Amendment rights were violated when plans for his proposed mansion were rejected by officials in Palm Beach.
The case centered on telecommunications entrepreneur Donald Burns, who applied to authorities in Palm Beach in 2014 to demolish an existing 10,000-square-foot traditional oceanfront home to be replaced by a more contemporary 20,000-square-foot mansion. However, the plans were rejected by Palm Beach’s Architectural Review Commission who decided the proposal did not achieve “comprehensive cohesiveness” and was too radical a departure from surrounding properties.
Burns appealed the decision to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing that the decision violated his First Amendment rights. The court ruled against Burns in a 2-1 decision, rejecting his argument that the design of the house constituted his own expressive conduct. “A reasonable observer would view Burns’ new mansion as a really big house but not as an expression of some sort of message,” read the majority opinion by Judges Luck and Carnes.
In his dissenting view, Judge Marcus instead argued that “the First Amendment — the most powerful commitment to think, speak and express in the history of the world — does not permit the government to impose its majoritarian aesthetic whims on Burns without a substantial reason.”
In November 2021, Burns filed a petition for the case to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. In the submittal, Burns’ attorneys argued that the design for the contemporary mansion “communicated that his new home would be clean, fresh, independent, and modern — a reflection of his evolved philosophy of simplicity in lifestyle and living with an emphasis on fewer personal possessions, and communicated his message that he was unique and different from his neighbors. The traditional style of his home no longer reflected his views or his identity.”
“Architectural design, especially the design of one’s own home, is an expressive form of art that can, and for Burns’ proposed design, should, be entitled to robust First Amendment protection,” the petition continued.
Burns also gained support from groups including the National Association of Home Builders of the United States. “This court has never specifically addressed the status of architecture as expressive conduct,” the group wrote in a supporting statement, arguing that “architecture is expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment, no different than other mediums portraying or otherwise involving architecture, such as Edward Hopper’s painting House by the Railroad or the Simon & Garfunkel song So Long Frank Lloyd Wright.”
Attorneys for the Palm Beach planning authorities meanwhile submitted their own brief arguing against Burns’ petition. “Petitioner’s ongoing effort to invoke fundamental constitutional rights in an otherwise straightforward zoning case involving the municipal denial of a new, oversized house on an undersized lot in accordance with stated architectural review criteria fails to present any grounds for review by this court” the document read, before noting that the Supreme Court has never reviewed zoning laws through the lens of First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court ultimately declined to hear the case.
24 Comments
The only message I see: 'my greed and excess are bigger than yours.' I hope this asshole is charged all the court expenses instead of taxpayers' money. This decision is a nice precedent that should be used in future claims.
The idea that the neighbors get to decide what one family's house looks like has always bothered me, but the fact that the only people with the means to test in the courts are the wealthy makes me cheer this decision. Get fucked, Richie.
The Achilles heal of the left- moral inconsistency
You forgot to flush.
My previous comment was directed to the troll who has to make everything about his grievance about his own personal failure.
seems to me that all the haters of wealth and success are doing that ^
... the First Amendment ... does not permit the government to impose its majoritarian aesthetic whims on Burns without a substantial reason.
According to the project description, there are ten thousand reasons, not a single one of them 'aesthetic.'
I bet if it had hipped roofs and contextual “coastal” facades no one would object to the size. It’s located at 1021 N. Ocean blvd, neighboring huge mansions on either side. Perhaps the neighbors simply didn’t want to live next to a construction site, so they used the “rules” to kill the project. I don’t really give a f€£k about either side in this specific case, it’s the principal that is of concern.
I agree with zoning regulation in regards to mass / scale, but the extent to which projects are subject to aesthetic review by any number of "boards" has gotten out of control. How many modernist master works (Schroder House, Villa Savoye, Farnsworth House, The Eames House, or any of the Case study homes) would make it through todays myriad of approvals? The particulars of this case are irrelevant (one rich a-hole vs. another group of rich a-holes), its the principal that is of concern. I have not seen any evidence that these aesthetic reviews/approvals provide for any better outcome, and are primarily tools of the rich and connected to protect their perceived property values. Don't forget that these types of reviews are mainly used to keep certain "undesirables" out.
architects with animosity towards the rich is like doctors with animosity towards the sick. When was the last time someone making less than 200k a year wrote you a check?
all the time... quite often, to be more precise...
I dont see the point of demonizing "the rich". I've met very few wealthy people who didn't work hard and earn their money. Its a bit of a myth that all wealthy folks just had a trust fund handed to them. Even in that case their parents or grandparents did. Most are professionals or business owners of some kind. I recently did a project for a restaurant owner who came to the US with less than 500$ and has worked 16 hour days for 30 years. At first glance you'd say f-that guy...but how many jobs over the years has he provided...how many people where able to make rent because of a business he created? In his absence, what would fill that role? Im sick and tired of the lazy leftist angst towards success...The truth is, without the rain makers, most people would be starving to death in the streets. Its this way in all societies, even tribal ones. Why demonize success?
20000 sq. ft. house is too big for an individual carbon footprint. We need to learn to be responsible for the future of Earth. I don't care if he is rich I never said the word.
Enjoy the rain while you can, before the whole world turns into an environmental dystopia. My point exactly. It is our world that is decaying fast. As an architect, I made it part of my business to tell my clients when the things are too much in excess. As a fellow architect, I would want to see you doing it too. We all have a stake in this, x-jla. At least I see it that way and responsibly so.
Hate the game, not the players.
Jon Randall, Architect
Our firm has designed and constructed residences all over the United States and every states "Zone Authorities" have rules about areas of buildings as that refers to the size of the lot. Here in Los Angeles City the coverage of a R-1 lot for a single residence has been that no more than 50% of the lot may be covered by a residence and there may be conditions that the code will allow another 10% of coverage. The city counts the total of the floors to check if that exceeds the 50% lot coverage. You can holler and scream but that's the law.
But that's not the issue here. The case was over design review.
tduds, “Petitioner’s ongoing effort to invoke fundamental constitutional rights in an otherwise straightforward zoning case involving the municipal denial of a new, oversized house on an undersized lot in accordance with stated architectural review criteria fails to present any grounds for review by this court” It sounds to me like this person was trying to do an end run around the buildible envelope
with a bs argument.
*buildable*
Nope, it was a design based decision. I did some digging over lunch earlier. https://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201814515.pdf
Quoting from the PDF: Burns’s proposal met every objective zoning requirement to be found in Palm Beach’s Town Code. That the proposal met all objective zoning requirements has never been disputed. Indeed, the Zoning Administrator for Palm Beach asserted at a Town Council meeting that the house “me[]t code as it relates to setbacks, lot coverage, landscape [and] open space.”
I don’t see how architectural expression does not fall under the umbrella of 1A. Architectural language clearly expresses cultural, political, personal, and even religious ideas. There is a long history of this. Modernist aesthetics say something very different than neoclassical aesthetics. Even in the nations founding an architectural language to represent the new nation was contemplated and implemented.
Bad enough hoas codify homogeneity. Now arbitrary whims of some jerk offs…that’s the precedent being set.
The polarity in society is leading to a tit for tat erosion of our civil liberties. It’s most important to protect speech that we disagree with than speech we agree with. We need a shared devotion and consistency towards the basics at the very
least.
Thanks tduds, that makes it an interesting free speech question.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.