|
<br />
<br />LOt: trial
<br />iiiute its
<br />~ that of
<br />- finding
<br />of which '
<br />-P power, .,.
<br />- a basis ' .
<br />objective "
<br />~=-~~;i suf. '
<br />finding":'
<br />:Tex.Sup. .
<br />"'n_. 154
<br />
<br />the trial
<br />i the City-
<br />n _ listed'
<br />
<br />!I.)f~y that
<br />-::::::~= a
<br />f the City
<br />''''~,,~ We
<br />~ Council
<br />knowlp~""
<br />- - ---0-
<br />, of' testi.
<br />It doesn't ': ,--:.
<br />_: leaving '. "
<br />lection ~f' :. - ,:
<br />sibility 'of. .:'~ '
<br />~ edges' of ;;:, ~
<br />C~,:,C~ c~I.' .\ ,(
<br />Leaving ': :::,
<br />':-00", fa.cil~~;:::'" '~"
<br />fact~ ~~L':': :if.
<br />
<br />,_-~~ ~o~:jf:~' :'. ~~:
<br />
<br />'~ of oth~ ,>" "
<br />Tex.Penal,'
<br />(1971) re:. ':
<br />
<br />-t,
<br />
<br />located in
<br />isiMe from .
<br />cf-'...,a.y are
<br />welfare of
<br />reduce the
<br />invite van.
<br />'; to consti-
<br />creating a
<br />
<br />_ L _:.......I"C
<br />., VA IIU.I.U.".
<br />-.1:-luiiii~ wet- ".
<br />
<br />-::-:~ urban,
<br />maint~ '
<br />
<br />=,~!!Pls:;."
<br />
<br />CITY OF HOUSTON v. JOHNNY FRANK'S AUTO PARTS CO.
<br />Cite ilK 480 K, W ,2d 774
<br />
<br />Tex. 779
<br />
<br />nance and continuing development of
<br />the municipalities in the State of Texas,
<br />and such vehicles are therefore, declared
<br />to be a public nuisance."
<br />
<br />We hold that the enactment of an ordi-
<br />nance to regulate the operation ~f auto-
<br />motive wrecking and salvage yards is a
<br />constitutional exercise by a city of its police
<br />powers.
<br />
<br />[3-5] The question remains whether the
<br />ordinance here involved was such an un-
<br />reasonable exercise of police power as to
<br />be invalid. Even though an ordinance is
<br />passed to accomplish a purpose properly
<br />within the scope of a city's police power,
<br />it must not be whqlly unreasonable nor un-
<br />duly oppressive in its operation upon those
<br />affected by it. It must be reasonably neces-
<br />sary for the preservation of health, safety
<br />and welfare. 40 Tex.]ur.2d Municipal Cor-
<br />porations, sec. 327 (1962). However, when
<br />the validity of an ordinance is attacked on
<br />this basis there is a presumption of valid-
<br />ity and the attacker, to prevail, must clearly
<br />show that it is arbitrary, un~easonable and
<br />an abuse of the police power. City of Wes-
<br />laco v. Melton, 158 Tex. 61, 308 S.W.2d 18
<br />(1957). The questio~ of its reasonable-
<br />ness is a question of law, not of fact. City
<br />of Coleman v. Rhone, 222 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.
<br />Civ.App.-Eastland 1949, writ ref'd). In
<br />City of Waxahachie v. Watkins, supra" 275
<br />S.W.2d at page 480, the Court said:
<br />
<br />,"The courts cannot interfere unless it
<br />appears that the ordinance represents a
<br />clear abuse of municipal discretion. And
<br />the 'extraordinary burden' rests on one
<br />attacking the ordinance 'to show that no
<br />conclusive, or even controversial or issu-
<br />able, facts or conditions existed which
<br />would authorize the governing board of
<br />the municipality to exercise the discre-
<br />tion confided to it.' "
<br />
<br />One basis upon which the plainti ffs con-
<br />tended that the ordinance was unreason-
<br />able and unduly burdensome on them was
<br />in the expense to which they would be
<br />put in complying with it. There was testi-
<br />
<br />mony to the effect that it, would cost as
<br />much as $12,500.00 to fence one of the
<br />yards with a wood fence and $18,500.00
<br />with a chain link fence with slats. One of
<br />the plaintiffs testified that his yard was on
<br />leased property and that the cost of comply-
<br />ing with the ordinance would force him out
<br />, of business. There was also testimony that
<br />their business would suffer if they could
<br />not leave their wares visible to the passing
<br />public.
<br />
<br />The fact that the enforcement of this
<br />ordinance will cause pecuniary loss to those
<br />affected by it does not require that it be
<br />held invalid. See State v. Spartan's In-
<br />dustries, Inc., 447 S.W.2d 407 (Tex. Sup.
<br />1969) and State 'v. Richards, 157 Tex. 166,
<br />301 S.W.2d 597 (Tex.Sup. 1957).
<br />
<br />The ordina,nce does not result in a taking
<br />of property nor even a prohibition of a use
<br />of the property. It only regulates the oper-
<br />ation of a particular type of business. In
<br />Caruthers v. Board of Adjustment, 290
<br />S.W.2d 340, 346 (Tex.Civ.App.-Galveston
<br />1956, no writ) the Court said:
<br />
<br />"It is also our belief that, under the au'-
<br />thorities, short of actual taking for public
<br />use, legislation regulatory of the use of
<br />property pursuant to the police power is
<br />to be sustained regardless of even severe
<br />hardship in particular cases whenever the
<br />public health, safety, morals or general
<br />welfare outweigh the equities of the indi-
<br />vidual property owner."
<br />
<br />In Auto Transit Co. v. City of Ft. Worth,
<br />182 S.W. 685, 692 (Tex.Civ.App.-Fort
<br />Worth 1916, writ ref'd) the Court said,
<br />"Nor does the fact that plaintiffs will suf-'
<br />fer a pecuniary injury by reason of the
<br />enforcement of said ordinance even tend
<br />to establish the truth of the contention that
<br />the ordinance is invalid."
<br />
<br />The pecuniary loss that these plaintiffs
<br />wi\l suffer from the enforcement of the
<br />ordinance is not so out of proportion to
<br />the benefit that the publi,c wi\l receive as
<br />to render it invalid.
<br />
<br />, 1
<br />:l I.
<br />I ~.
<br />I~ .'
<br />I' "
<br />i': ;U .~
<br />,,'
<br />'. i
<br />' 1 ,)
<br />
<br />;-,~:~~
<br />
<br />... ---
<br />I: __n
<br />f
<br />f. -
<br />~
<br />r-
<br />i -
<br />r
<br />I:
<br />I:
<br />
<br />...
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />!.
<br />
<br />,:1
<br />, ,
<br />it
<br />'1:11
<br />;lr.
<br />
<br />I,
<br />t-
<br />f
<br />L'
<br />[
<br />[
<br />~ ~-~~ -
<br />.... - 0"_
<br />._-~-
<br />I -
<br />I
<br />I
<br />f~_
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />I ; I
<br />iil !: I -,
<br />; I ; ; ~ i -,
<br />-
<br />,; Ii: It, ~
<br />:,' II. ' it; ~.
<br />. .' '!" ~l' IE'
<br />(Ci j1 !'~I !Ii-
<br />~
<br />. ' '1,,1.
<br />III' I' l.:.t
<br />, .- I Ie ~::: -
<br />a" '
<br /> I"" 'I I
<br />.:...~ ~ I ;tl I
<br /> , II. II' :1: ~
<br />I ., '11
<br /> I "1' ,: ,
<br />: ; 'i l~ '1; '.1
<br />1 '.'s -
<br />. I" '.' ' i~
<br /> . 'I'
<br />;; ,.I: it;. '. (,
<br />"flil I:; -
<br />I.. I It I
<br />; . ,'I --.
<br />\ I" -
<br />'Ill' J 0":
<br />.'
<br />:11 II" f'
<br />. . . ;~ I I,
<br />~ '. I '. !
<br /> . .' 0(
<br /> I "
<br /> ! I' f ~-
<br /> . I ,"
<br />. I f ,\ -
<br />
<br />'~~'~~'::~~~~_J~~;;::::.::::'.:~::~':j~~;:}~~";~7;;::,:Y'~?!::~'9~::';_JS1~~p~~"'~3i~;2:~~~r~__
<br />
<br />..:~~",,~~~~~~~---=-~-~~~~~-~~f:.;~;=~ ~-~~~
<br />
<br />-------==-~=__:_--_=O_~ci..._...... --- _ - --~.~,-"-i-,,-~.-
<br />
|