This case deals with a comprehensive zoning ordinance enacted by the Village of Euclid.
Zoning is a relatively recent legal development that put Government in the position of deciding how private land should be used.
Look at how extensive were the controls enacted in this case:
All the land in the village was divided into 6 use districts – the most restricted of which allowed only single-family dwellings and farming and the most permissive of which allowed practically all residential, commercial, and industrial uses.
All land was further divided into three height districts and to four area districts governing minimum area of dwellings.
The PI in this case owned a 68-acre tract of land that was zoned U-2, U-3 and U-6. The result of the zoning restrictions was to reduce the value of his land by 75% (from $10,000 per acre if not zoned versus $2500 per acre as zoned under the ordinance. Casebook p. 756
What was the purpose of zoning part of this land as U2 (residential two-family dwellings)? Why not at least allow the land closest to Euclid Avenue to be zoned U3, so as to include apartment houses, churches, schools, museums, etc? What harm to the community do apartment houses cause? See casebook p. 760:
With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of
detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the
privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities—until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances.
See also p. 758: "A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard."
The Court applies "as you wish" deference to the city's police power argument:
If these reasons, thus summarized, do not demonstrate the wisdom or sound policy in all respects of those restrictions which we have indicated as pertinent to the inquiry, at least the reasons are sufficiently cogent to preclude us from saying, as it must be said before the ordinance can be declared unconstitutional, that such provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare. [As you wish, my beloved government]
But now see Note 3on page 761 discussing the lower court's view of the Euclid zoning scheme.
Who has the better argument--the Supreme Court or the federal district court?
