This case deals with a comprehensive zoning ordinance enacted by the Village of Euclid.
Zoning is a relatively recent legal development that put Governemnt 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
U-2 -Two family dwellings
U-3 - Apartments, hotels, libraries, museums
U-6 - Commercial and Industrial
Approximately one-third of this land was zoned for residential use only, even though the evidence showed that the “normal and reasonably to be expected” use of the land was “general trade and commercial purposes.” P. 757 Notice that this tract of land is being used to buffer single-family parcels located south of Euclid Avenue. Reduction in value of about 75%. See p. 756.
Take a look at the lower court's discussion of the police power and the Takings issue [p. 761, n. 3
Do you agree with the lower court's analysis?
