|
<br />
<br />",~,',~::~~t:J.~~':,;~~r~~f5:1~::~:.~(.A~~~~rt~~~~~r~~~r~~!~~t:"~l~'t~$~ll~:f~!:)}.~~t~ii~~;.)~:~;~~:~;~:"
<br />
<br />CITY OF HOUSTON v. JOHNNY FRANK'S AUTO PARTS CO.
<br />Cite Bt; 480 S.\\".2d..4
<br />
<br />citizen to USe
<br />'"
<br />so long as he
<br />~::~ and consti_
<br />power cannot '
<br />--. of a par-
<br />up".i" unless
<br />gers or threat_
<br />. ~ublic safety,
<br />'''''''''0 . A law
<br />,,:: regulation
<br />of the use of
<br />.:il:lI"l: of pre-
<br />:"f=--~:;. comfort
<br />. .~: that such ' :,
<br />purpose of the
<br />: ,,5 a clear and
<br />hi of property
<br />advantages. , " '
<br />
<br />manner, frequented and availed of by
<br />respectable people, and doubtless serving
<br />as a convenience to many, all the pre-
<br />scription visited upon common nuisances.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Like municipal regulations interfering
<br />with private property rights and founded
<br />upon purely aesthetic consid,erations, are
<br />universally held invalid."
<br />
<br />The Cour~ also noted that the ordinance,
<br />in giving the building inspector discretion
<br />to deny a permit without providing any rule
<br />or standard to guide the exercise of that
<br />discretion, was invalid.
<br />
<br />The history, since the date of the Spann
<br />case, of cities' exercise of their police pow-
<br />ers in the enactment of zoning ordinances
<br />is significant. An opinion 'which gave im-
<br />petus to the increase in the enactment of
<br />zoning ordinances by cities was Village of
<br />Euclid, Ohio, v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.
<br />S. 365, 47 S.Ct, 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926).
<br />There the Court said, at pages 386-388, 47
<br />S.Ct. at page 118:
<br />
<br />. .
<br />ot a regulation ':~~ ,
<br />:L": health or
<br />_ to talk about' < ! '
<br />ordinary retail '..', '
<br />c health or en-, "-.~':
<br />" It is equally; ,:",>,.
<br />eak of its im~',.'
<br />or as being ,'~:;:' :
<br />
<br />. u_::~~tt;:::{:~;\'~~
<br />
<br />rily conductecJ'.~'~ ....:.
<br />.;.' .;
<br />~ or confusio~";> '.<:.~
<br />. ~ small stores, '.\ : ' .~.
<br />.:,,':!! contem-' ::{';
<br />..,_u.. trading> '';';. 0
<br />--.---J . .\. .
<br />; reputable 'an(;:, :....
<br />~::~~._ Accord:' ," '~.'
<br />it is done in':
<br />.ii:.~ disturb or
<br />y highly sensi-
<br />- - not made to
<br />~ of such per-
<br />humanity-the "
<br />...;, police laws
<br />: ordinary use
<br />prohibited be-
<br />:::t:~~~~~ of a
<br />- ~ -~~ visits up-
<br />
<br />"Building zone laws are of modern origin.
<br />They began in this country 'about 25
<br />years ago. Until recent years, urban life
<br />, was comparatively simple; but, with the
<br />great increase and concentration of popu-
<br />lation, problems have developed" and con-
<br />stantly are developing, which require, and
<br />will continue to require, additional re-
<br />strictions in respect of the use and occu-
<br />pation of private lands in urban com-
<br />munities. Regulations, the wisdom, ne-
<br />cessity, and validity of which, as applied
<br />to existing conditions,' are so apparent
<br />that they are now uniformly sustained, a
<br />century ago, or even half a century ago,
<br />probably would have been rejected as
<br />arbitrary and oppressive. Such regula-
<br />tions are sustained, under the complex
<br />conditions of our day, for reasons analo-
<br />gous to those which justify traffic regu-
<br />lations, which before advent of automo-
<br />biles and rapid transit street railways
<br />would have been condemned as fataily
<br />arbitrary and unrea'sonable. And in this
<br />there is no inconsistency, for, while the
<br />480 S.W,2d-49V:a
<br />
<br />engaged in a,
<br />in an orderly'
<br />
<br />_.-s..'~.
<br />
<br />Tex.
<br />
<br />777
<br />
<br />meaning of constitutional guaranties nev-
<br />er varies, the scope of their application
<br />must expand or contract to meet the new
<br />and different conditions which are con-
<br />stantly coming within the field of their
<br />operation. In a changing world it is
<br />impossible that it should be otherwise.
<br />But although a degree of elasticity is
<br />thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to
<br />the application of constitutional princi-
<br />ples, statutes and ordinances, which, after
<br />giving due weight to the new conditions,
<br />are found clearly not to conform to the
<br />Constitution, of course, must fall.
<br />
<br />The ordinance now under review, and
<br />all similar laws and regulations, must
<br />find their justification in some aspects
<br />of the police power, asserted for the pub-
<br />lice welfare. The line which in this field
<br />separates the legitimate from the illegiti-
<br />mate assumption of power is not capable
<br />of precise delimitation. It varies with
<br />circumstances and conditions. A regula-
<br />tory zoning ordinance, which would be
<br />clearly valid as applied to the great cities,
<br />might be clearly invalid as applied to
<br />rural communities. In solving doubts, the
<br />maxim 'sic u'tere tuo ut alienum non
<br />laedas,' which lies at the foundation of
<br />so much of the common low of nuisances,
<br />ordinarily will furnish a fairly helpful
<br />clew. And the law of nuisances, likewise,
<br />may be consulted, not for the purpose of
<br />controlling, but for the helpful aid of
<br />its analogies in the process of ascertain-
<br />ing the scope of, the power. Thus the
<br />question whether the power exists to
<br />forbid the erection of a building of a
<br />particular kind or for a particular use,
<br />like the question whether a particular
<br />thing is a nuisance, is to be determined,
<br />not by an abstract consideration of the
<br />building or of the thing considered apart,
<br />but by considering it in connection with
<br />the circumstances and the locality. Stur-
<br />gis v. Bridgeman, L.R. 11 Ch. 852, 865.
<br />A nuisance may be merely a right thing
<br />in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor
<br />instead of the barnyard. If the validity
<br />of the legislative classification for zon-
<br />ing purposes be fairly debatable, the legis-
<br />
<br />
<br />I~-
<br />If ~
<br />I~ ~i <
<br />ij ,: ':
<br />It ~ ,j
<br />, I ~ I
<br />i:-t
<br />., '" ,
<br />oj :j ; I ,i
<br />~ I
<br />;' i : Ii: I i 1
<br />I \ '~ "
<br />~ I. 1 ~
<br />:,: j:l : 'I
<br />" I . '
<br />,.. t, "
<br />i: d' I 1
<br />,I 'il: ,,:
<br />j" tIll .'
<br />I' I
<br />, ~j;
<br />t" 'I
<br />U ;.1'1
<br />,I ,./
<br />\,'1 ," ! ~ . !
<br />, I
<br />1,', ';; " 1
<br />, "I . I i!
<br />: i 'IIi ~ j1
<br />'j" ',: I: ",'
<br />.,, 'I .
<br />, r ~ t
<br />I' ';; I ,:
<br />~:"U~L,,~;' ~!
<br />
<br />.... ..._."'.. _. ,.T ...
<br />
<br />1 '
<br />
<br />
<br />: ,j i 'j
<br />. , ill
<br />, . :1 f' ,I
<br />, . ~
<br />
<br />o I: " ':1
<br />t , : 1
<br />t ,". .
<br />j' " .
<br />. ; i i: :t'. ::
<br />.'.' t T" ,
<br />" I I',,'
<br />. I 'I'~
<br />. I'
<br />:j i ~
<br />, ,
<br />I'
<br />! !
<br />I
<br />
<br />.
<br />ii
<br />
<br />.
<br />!
<br />I
<br />
<br />. -.i~~:;~(€~ ~ .~# .f..." :f~- -~~~l_!.~~..~':~~:<:>,._,.~:\~~.1~(~~~~~~-:_~
<br />-:c _ _..:..-===-_-::..:....=--= =_~-"'. ~-;:-~;~-:;;-~ ~-=;=-=:-.------=-------------=--====-__.=__=_"'=----===_-=_-==7=--
<br />----.::-~.=:,~~~::,-----~-~-:;:~~~~"?.,..~--=~.~-~~- -------==----==~---.~~=~~,~-,---
<br />
<br />__________ -_______.__~_=c=c:_==~_-=~=~...,.=____.._~~.;a..t._~.-;.r...,.-..
<br />~------ ~__v~,""'~'"",""""~ - --:~:.~=~CB~';H;1Ii;L~-'
<br />______________c._~-_~_.~____ ___
<br />---- ---------- -.
<br />
<br />~ ~ _ '--~~..&:,:~~-r-'" - .
<br />
<br />----=--::~~~-~~;:~ ~-:;:-~=.~;~~-,:~_____=___.:_______::!....___=:....._~~ -.~~~~ s.>
<br />
|