Abstract
There are several interesting aspects to this latest “nondecision” of the U.S. Supreme Court. This comment addresses three aspects of the Court's judgment: the majority's treatment of constitutional issues; the concurrence treatment of constitutional issues (and in particular the Stevens response to the Brennan San Diego dissent) and the zoning/local government issues, particularly those having to do with subdivision plats and the plat approval process. These aspects are not exclusive, and discussion of one will obviously spill into another.