|
<br />~.,."~,.,..
<br />. ," . .-~.......
<br />i. ~~."t "';; "-:" ~t ~
<br />. .__...._-.=.~.
<br />~,'
<br />"
<br />
<br />..;; ."
<br />
<br />780 Tex.
<br />
<br />e
<br />tlo SOUTH WESTERN REPOltTER, 2d SERIES
<br />
<br />~,.,
<br />,,_. .. '..
<br />". "':G
<br />
<br />, 'J
<br />
<br />.....
<br />
<br />[6] The plaintiffs also argue that the
<br />ordinance is invalid for the reason that it
<br />requires fences made of wood, masonry,
<br />corrugated sheet metal or chain link fences
<br />with strips of wood or metal run through
<br />all links. They contend that the only pur-
<br />pose for this requirement is to achieve an
<br />aesthetic 'result and that sllch purpose is
<br />not within the scope of the city's police
<br />power. Their principal authority for such
<br />contention is Spann v. City of Dallas, cited
<br />and quoted above. In that case the Court
<br />held that "purely" aesthetic considerations
<br />were not a proper basis for the exercise,
<br />of the police power. In this case the City
<br />Council recited, as one basis for the en-
<br />actment of this ordinance:
<br />
<br />~
<br />
<br />.'
<br />
<br />"Jf.
<br />
<br />"The present visibility and accessibility
<br />of wrecked automotive vehicles and the
<br />parts therefrom upon and about the prem-
<br />ises of many automotive wrecking and
<br />salvage yards in the City of Houston is
<br />a hazard to the safety of children who are
<br />naturally attracted by such conditions;
<br />"
<br />
<br />. .
<br />."... ,
<br />~.~ .
<br />
<br />Such recitation demonstrates that this ordi-
<br />nance is not based upon "purely" aesthetic
<br />considerations.
<br />
<br />,
<br />, "
<br />
<br />. ty:. . .
<br />
<br />Another recitation in the preamble to the
<br />ordinance is:
<br />
<br />. ~;..../ "'-\ .
<br />
<br />, ,
<br />. :.
<br />
<br />"The open and obvious use of land in, the
<br />City of. Houston for the wrecking, stor-
<br />age or display of wrecked or junked au-
<br />tomotive vehicles or the parts therefrom
<br />has caused a relative decline in the mar-
<br />ket. value of property, the use and en-
<br />joyment of property, the enjoyment of
<br />life, and the general welfare of those
<br />inhabitants of the City of Houston who
<br />live near su~h business locations. The
<br />present visibility and accessibility of
<br />wrecked automotive vehicles and the
<br />parts therefrom upon and about the prem-
<br />ises of many aut,omotive wrecking and
<br />salvage yards in the City of Houston is
<br />a hazard to the safety of children who
<br />
<br />"t
<br />
<br />.~ a ..
<br />
<br />"
<br />
<br />are naturally attracted by such condi.
<br />tions ; "
<br />
<br />:' ~. '~.
<br />
<br />If the removal of an eyesore be cons.d......::,:..,',
<br />I _ "' ~
<br />ered an aesthetic achi~vemcnt, it is appare t::':'-:::'
<br />from this recitation that it was not Ui~.~' :'.
<br />sole purpose of the City to please the senses;<:>',:::'
<br />or, more accurately, to remove an offens ;'..,1, ::'
<br />to ,them, in requiring that the fences .~~..,<<
<br />sohd. It was the expressed purpose to rc...,:-::';j
<br />move a condition that, because of its un~ ::' ..:' " .
<br />sightliness, impaired the value of surround~: :,c'~ ,...
<br />ing property. The propriety of such pur.>. .:. '
<br />pose as a basis for the exercise of police '::~,~
<br />power is suggested by the language in '..
<br />Connor v. City of University Park, 142 ~.
<br />S.W.2d 706,712 (Tex.Civ.App.-Dallas 1940 .:',',:
<br />writ ref'd) wherein the Court said: ' .'.-. J : > '
<br />;..~..:...
<br />
<br />"Furthermore, in zoning, the aesthetic;', .::'~',
<br />consideration is not to be ignored. Har-~ :': :/ '
<br />. .,.. .J -
<br />momous appearance, appropriateness,:,;-:.:.~::"
<br />good taste and beauty displayed in .a: ,':i;" '
<br />neighborhood not only tend to conserie' ,: '.~~,', .
<br />the value of property, but foster con:,;::>',
<br />tentment and happiness among hom~ ":: '~":..' .
<br />owners." 0, ,':"<.:,
<br />. ":I""'~ .f~';. .....
<br />
<br />See also Thompson v. City of Carrollt~/j: !',:.:::,
<br />211 S.W.2d 970 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana:,!J":~ .','
<br />1948, no writ).' . ~<" '::, /"
<br />.~~;:.( :;,:~
<br />
<br />[7] The appellees also cite the case ~f>_'.: ,",><.
<br />City of Corpus Christi v. Allen, 152 Ta::1:' ,'~ ,'~"
<br />137, 254 S.W.2d 759 (1953) as support'iot::.::~;" ;:./: ;
<br />their contention that their operations~:~::''-/> ,:.' ,
<br />not nuisances. The case' is not in p~int~:/:~\ :~:: .
<br />here. In the first place, it is not necessary;,:'. ~ 7 ;.
<br />that a business constitute a nuisance toube"~. ',~' ,
<br />subject to regulation under the police pOw- ,'~,,:<'
<br />er. The case cited so indicates. That ca~;,.;', '
<br />held that giving retroactive effect to a zon~' ...:.; ,~,
<br />ing ordinance to prohibit the operation of a, .~,
<br />wrecking yard was unreasonable and in- :
<br />valid. This ordinance doesn't prohibit the
<br />operation of wrecking yards-it regulates
<br />their operation. Of further significance is
<br />the fact that since the date of that case' ',~ ,
<br />the Legislature has enacted Tex.Penal Code' :-.:
<br />Ann. art. 1436-3 (1971) wherein it dec1are(.' '
<br />junked vehicles visible to the public ,to ~:.":':' ,
<br />
<br />. ....
<br />
<br />l: ~~~ . ~..:..
<br />
<br />- ~. "0 . .
<br />"
<br />
<br />a puhlic
<br />! !!!h~~trip!l:
<br />
<br />The jm
<br />versed.!
<br />the .,,,:.-.i.-
<br />nance No.
<br />is hereby
<br />nance to ~
<br />
<br />(;v~.~i.i;:;
<br />
<br />o
<br />
<br />y
<br />
<br />.''1'_ ~.
<br />YV UI AI
<br />
<br />14th Distri
<br />Harless, J
<br />disabled :,
<br />carrier "!'!
<br />peals, ~...,.
<br />pensation
<br />pleaded by
<br />it could
<br />of wage rll
<br />~ - ~ - ---- - ... ~ -
<br />
<br />could not .
<br />that wage
<br />sumed ~;-;;.::
<br />process to
<br />ing it to f
<br />
<br />---....--.........:
<br />
<br />--...1'-............
<br />
<br />hearsay.
<br />
<br />... ~,. -
<br />nl1un
<br />
<br />
|