|
<br />. . .' :'-, J'" : 'P:.~' '. ;::'~.;.'.."'~:.f.. -. '';; ;....:...: ~ .il,': . - ~.~ll"'-'
<br />~--_.~~._'~_..._."""~'~~. ..
<br />..-,,' -:'~:j ,,:'. .:~t:7:''; e'
<br />. _.; . _.~ i'
<br />" .
<br />.. , "',
<br />o ',' ..
<br />," ...~_.-:....:.r . .
<br />
<br />'. ....T.J .~~r ...... O--t. -.,.. '-~~:'. -.."~
<br />
<br />-
<br />
<br />
<br />, .
<br />
<br />'.
<br />
<br />776 Tex.
<br />
<br />480 SOUTH WESTERN REPORTER, 2d SERIES
<br />
<br />1... .
<br />
<br />
<br />. ...".~. .
<br />
<br />3. As to these Plaintiffs, the Court con-
<br />cludes that the enactment of Section 3
<br />of Ordinance 71-815 dealing with fcnc-
<br />ing has no substantial relationship to the
<br />public health, safety, morals or welfare
<br />of the people of the City of Houston, and,
<br />therefore, does not come within the police
<br />power vested in the City of Houston.
<br />
<br />.... ~. ",'
<br />
<br />" .j'
<br />
<br />. ..'
<br />. ...':
<br />
<br />.,. ;t .
<br />'OJ.. ~.".
<br />. , '
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />:'." ~ ." .
<br />
<br />.'--' ~ ..
<br />
<br />. ,.:)t
<br />
<br />,~. ''':~':
<br />
<br />4. The Court concludes that to compel
<br />these Plaintiffs to comply with City of
<br />Houston Ordinance 71-815 would be an
<br />unreasonable exercise of Defendants' po-
<br />lice power and would constitute a taking
<br />of property in violation of the Texas
<br />Constitution. V.A.C.S., Article 1,' Sec-
<br />tions 3, 19."
<br />
<br />. '~'. ~...:.'. ..>~.
<br />
<br />" ,
<br />
<br />:.;.! .~
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />(The reference to the ordinance in ques-
<br />tion as 71-815, instead of 71-825, is ad-
<br />mittedly a typographical error.)
<br />
<br />..'
<br />- '",
<br />
<br />The principal authority upon which the
<br />appellees rely as support for their conten-
<br />tion that the ordinance is unconstitutional
<br />is Spann v. City of Dallas, 111 Tex. 350,
<br />235 S.W. 513 (1921). In that case a zoning
<br />ordinance enacted by the City of Dallas
<br />was held unconstitutional. The ordinance
<br />was held not to be a constitutional exercise
<br />of the city's police power. It prohibited the
<br />construction, of any business house within
<br />what it defined as a residential district ex-
<br />cept with consent of three-fourths of the
<br />owners of property within the district.
<br />Even with the required consent of property
<br />owners the ordinance required that the de-
<br />sign of the proposed building be approved
<br />by the building inspector. It did not pre-
<br />scribe standards to control the inspector's
<br />. approval or disapproval of such design.
<br />
<br />, f
<br />
<br />.. r'"
<br />
<br />,'::~' .
<br />'. ',...~~:,;..
<br />
<br />, I',',
<br />
<br />",'... -
<br />l~ "(- ~ :
<br />.... .; '!I. ..
<br />(. ":'.: ~
<br />
<br />,..-' " \,: :,,';
<br />. '.~"= .... :
<br />....-.
<br />--::' .........
<br />..' ...."..
<br />- ~ '-.
<br />
<br />~~.~>
<br />
<br />"." or-:
<br />."... .
<br />':.., ,
<br />
<br />.~._ . . ,1 '.
<br />
<br />. . r. ~'.
<br />
<br />.".t- . .r '.
<br />.-:,. s "':~'-
<br />...:.....:. .
<br />
<br />....~: .~
<br />". .:
<br />
<br />- ~<j,
<br />
<br />In. the Spann case the land owner who
<br />challenged the constitutionality of the ordi-
<br />nance had been denied a permit to build,
<br />within a residential district, store houses
<br />of brick, one-story in height, of artistic
<br />design, set back at least ten feet from th~
<br />property line and at a cost of $6500.00. The
<br />Supreme Court, in holding the ordinance
<br />unconstitutional,' said:
<br />
<br />;,
<br />
<br />, .
<br />. _ . ....1
<br />
<br />-- ~..~
<br />~~.-
<br />-~--
<br />
<br />.:~:~'5iir1U":
<br />
<br />"Since the right of the citizen to Use '.:~~ ,~.
<br />his property as he chooses so long as he i '.;~/
<br />harms nobody, is an inherent and consti. .. '.',,:
<br />tutional right, the police power cannot ,:'~:"
<br />be invoked for the ahridgment of a par-'.,; ',: ' :
<br />ticular use of private property, unleSs ::::~:'. ..
<br />such use reasonably endangers or threat_ '::~;:-::'
<br />ens the public health, the public safety,'.: >~:
<br />the public comfort or welfare. A law .:~: ','..
<br />which assumes to be a police regulation '.,',:
<br />but deprives the citizen of the use of:....; :':,:
<br />his property under the pretense of pre- ,::'\'
<br />serving the public health, safety, comfort :.;~::'
<br />or welfare, when it is manifest that such .'.. t."
<br />is not the real object and purpose of the .'".'~:,
<br />regulation, will be set aside as a clear and' ~'::::.,
<br />direct invasion of the right of property)~.';i'.::
<br />without any compensating advantages.-':':':;
<br />Cooley, Const.Lim., 248. '~,?:~T:::
<br />
<br />. . . . . .1' "" ,
<br />The ordinance is clearly not a regulatiol1..',~.::'
<br />.... '.'
<br />for the protection of the public health o.r~'i)~~
<br />. the public safety. It is idle to talk about~: ::,;',
<br />the lawful business of an ordinary retaiE,;' ';', ~,
<br />store threatening the public health or en-<<:,~.~
<br />dangering the public safety. It is equiliJyt;~. ",1
<br />idle in our opinion to speak of its ii!!~~:'; ": <
<br />pairing the public' comfort or as beit!gr ~'. .~,..;:
<br />injurious to the public welfare of a coni{ -.: :'~: " .
<br />munity. Retail stores are places of triid~i': . . ,.;,~
<br />it is true, but as ordinarily conducua; , .:,
<br />they are not places of noise or confusi~i:, xc,..,'-~
<br />This is particularly true of sma))' sld~; . <~f ; . .
<br />such as it appears the plaintiff conte:n;j:
<br />plated erecting. The ordinary tradiii~',; ,:" ,.,' ,
<br />that goes on within them is reputable ana::':.;, ,:"
<br />honorable, and can hurt nobody. Accord:'~': >(
<br />ing to common experience it is done in>,":'~:'
<br />an orderly manner. It could disturb 01:;'<.
<br />impair the comfort of only highly sensi- '
<br />tive persons. But laws are not made to "
<br />suit the acute sensibilities of such per:' - .
<br />sons. It is with common humanity-th~ ,:: ..
<br />average of the people, that police laws ..'
<br />must deal. A lawful and ordinary us~ '.
<br />of property is not to be prohibited be.:"; ..
<br />cause repugnant to the sentiments of a
<br />particular class. The ordinance visits up-
<br />on ordinary retail stores, engaged in a,
<br />useful business, conducted in an or~er)!; .
<br />
<br />"
<br />~ <PI
<br />
<br />.: :.:
<br />
<br />--
<br />. "
<br />
|