Document: 369 U.S. 590 82 S.Ct. 987 8 L.Ed.2d 130 Herbert W. GOLDBLATT et al., Appellants,v.TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK. No. 78. Argued Jan. 15, 16, 1962. Decided May 14, Milton I. Newman, New York City, for the appellants. William C. Mattison, Brooklyn, N.Y., appellee. Mr. Justice CLARK delivered opinion of Court. 1 The Town Hempstead has enacted an ordinance regulating dredging and pit excavating on property within its limits. Appellants, who engaged in such operations prior to enactment ordinance, claim that it effect prevents them from continuing their business therefore takes without due process law violation Fourteenth Amendment. trial court held was a valid exercise town's police power, 19 Misc.2d 176, 186 N.Y.S.2d 577, Appellate Division affirmed, 9 A.D.2d 941, 196 573. Court Appeals divided affirmed. N.Y.2d 101, 211 185, 172 N.E.2d 562. We noted probable jurisdiction, 366 942, 81 1673, 6 854, having heard argument we now affirm judgment. 2 Appellant Goldblatt owns 38-acre tract Hempstead. At time present litigation appellant Builders Sand Gravel Corporation mining sand gravel this lot, use which lot had been put continuously since 1927. Before end first year excavation reached water table leaving waterfilled crater widened deepened point is 20-acre lake with average depth 25 feet. town expanded around excavation, today radius 3,500 feet there are more than 2,200 homes four public schools combined enrollment 4,500 pupils. 3 action but one series steps undertaken by effort regulate excavations A 1945 provided pits must be enclosed wire fence comply certain berm slope requirements. Although appellants complied sought injunction against further as being violative zoning ordinance. This failed because were found 'conducting non-conforming premises * *.' 135 N.Y.L.J., issue 52, p. 12 (1956). did not appeal. 4 In 1958 amended Ordinance 16 prohibit any below table1 impose affirmative duty refill presently level. new amendment also made berm, slope, requirements onerous. 5 1959 brought enjoin grounds they amended, nor acquired permit required it.2 Appellants contended, inter alia, unconstitutional (1) regulatory completely prohibitor confiscated compensation, (2) deprived benefit favorable judgment arising previous litigation, (3) constituted ex post facto legislation. However, agree, enjoined conducting until obtained provisions 16. Concededly prohibits beneficial previously devoted. characterization does tell us whether or unconstitutional. It oft-repeated truism every regulation necessarily speaks prohibition. If otherwise powers, fact deprives most render Walls v. Midland Carbon Co., 254 300, 41 118, 65 L.Ed. 276 (1920); Hadacheck Sebastian, 239 394, 36 143, 60 348 (1915); Reinman Little Rock, 237 171, 35 511, 59 900 Mugler Kansas, 123 623, 273, 31 205 (1887); see Laurel Hill Cemetery San Francisco, 216 358, 30 301, 54 515 (1910). As pointed out supra, at 668—669, 301: 7 '(T)he case governed principles do involve power eminent domain, may taken compensation. prohibition simply upon purposes declared, legislation, injurious health, morals, safety community, cannot, just sense, deemed taking appropriation benefit. Such legislation disturb owner control his lawful purposes, restrict right dispose it, only declaration state one, forbidden prejudicial interests. states have prohibiting individuals property, will public, not, and, consistently existence organized society, cannot be, burdened condition compensate individual owners pecuniary losses sustain, reason permitted, noxious inflict injury community.' Nor controlling significance 'use' prohibited here soil itself opposed soil, cf. United States Central Eureka Mining 357 155, 78 1097, 1228 (1958), arguably common-law nuisance, e.g., supra. say, however, governmental form so onerous constitute constitutionally requires Pennsylvania Coal Co. Mahon, 260 393, 43 158, 67 322 (1922); There no set formula determine where ends begins. comparison values before after relevant, means conclusive, diminution value $800,000 $60,000 upheld. How far go becomes need decide, evidence record even remotely suggests reduce question.3 Indulging usual presumption constitutionality, infra, U.S., 596, S.Ct., 991, find indication prohibitory sufficient if regulation. 10 question, therefore, narrows power. term 'police power' connotes time-tested conceptional limit encroachment private Except substitution familiar standard 'reasonableness,' generally refrained announcing specific criteria. classic statement rule Lawton Steele, 152 133, 137, 14 499, 501, 38 385 (1894), still today: 11 'To justify interposing authority behalf appear—First, interests require interference; second, reasonably necessary accomplishment purpose, unduly oppressive individuals.' Even applied strict precision, often said 'debatable questions reasonableness courts Legislature E.g., Sproles Binford, 286 374, 388, 52 581, 585, 76 1167 (1932). 13 question passed measure, attempting uphold basis. To evaluate know things nature menace protect, availability effectiveness other less drastic protective steps, loss suffer imposition careful examination reveals dearth relevant these points. One fair inference few holes burrowed under surrounding might attractive dangerous children. But stood actual danger deepening would increase danger. terms dollars some objective standard, showing how much, thing, cost short, produced clearly indecisive table. 15 could imagine preventing pond already deep de minimis safety, say conclusion compelled facts can take notice. draw conclusion, unable unreasonable; all know, Our past cases leave doubt burden 'reasonableness.' Bibb Navajo Freight Lines, 359 520, 529, 79 962, 967, 1003 (1959) (exercise presumed valid); Salsburg Maryland, 346 545, 553, 74 280, 284, 98 281 (1954) (the State); Carolene Products 304 144, 154, 58 778, 784, 1234 (1938) upheld either known assumed affords support it). met, 20-acre-lake stand turn our attention remainder 18 acres yet mined excavated. themselves contend area mined. They surface space processing incident obtainable. urged important factor contention upholding limitation confiscate entire utility property. validity supposition. relation existing valid, follows fortiori permissible prevent creation pits. note able obtain suitable geology 18-acre excavation. table, admit, too close ground commercial face restrictions impossibility makes unnecessary decide what extent limited 17 Appellants' contentions warrant passing word. rights undermined unfounded. successful defense erect constitutional barrier suit enforce while issues presented decided suit.4 consider come wing process. imposes penalty fine imprisonment duties refilling construction fence. founded principally prohibitions bills attainder legislation.5 These severable, both express declaration, Since enforcement well-established undertake constitutionality. Ohio Tax Cases, 232 576, 594, 34 372, 376, 737 (1914); Raines, 362 17, 80 519, 524 (1960). That determination await another day. pass invoked, probabilities us, Affirmed. 20 FRANKFURTER took part decision case. 21 WHITE consideration Specifically provides '(n)o shall two above maximum level site.' Under deny proposed violate similar scarcity relative machinery event shut down. adjudicated substantial improvements indicative mine closed; perhaps commercially salable. appellee asserts properly preserved below. Due disposition arguments, reach question.

Category: 3