The Washington times., 1928-08-18
UPREME COURT
BACKS ZONE
RULING

While the United States supreme
Court has emphatically approved the
constitutionality OF the general prlh'
ciples Of zoning in the famous case
of Euclid VS.. Amber company ana ~
a number of subsequent decisions, II
will refuse to uphold coming ordl-
nance which Is unreasonable.
This is indicated, the National As
sociatCn Of Real Estate Boarus
points out, in an important decision
handed down by the Supreme Court
in the case of NectoW VS.. the lily
of Cambridge, Mass. Here the su-
sprenle Court, reversing the supreme
judicial court Of the State of Massa-
chusetts, held that the coming was
arbitrary, unreasonable and in this
particular void.
The governmental power to inter
fere by coming regulations with the
general rights of the land owner Dy
restricting the character of his use
is not unlimited, and bther questions
aside. such restriction cannot be I'M
posed IL it does not bear substantial
relation to public health, SAFETY,
morals or general welfare, the court
held.
Refused to Comply
Citing the fact that the Cambridge
ordinance is of the same general
character as that considered by the
Supreme Court in the case of Euclid
vs.. Amber company, 272 U. S. $50,
the court states that in its general
scope the Cambridge zoning measure
is conceded to be constitutional
within that decision.
The case was brought to set aside
the ordinance in respect to a prop
erty restricted to residential pur-
poses but adjacent to unrestricted
property in use for an automobile as
sembling plant and for a soap fac
tory.
In giving its opinion the Supreme
Court cites as pertinent the fact that
the owner OF the tract before the pas
sage OF the ordinance had outstand.
ing contract for the sale of the
greater part OF his land, part of 1t
only in the restricted area. for the
sum of $4,000, but that because Of
the coming restrictions. the purchaser
refused To comply with the contract.
The court states further the opin-
ion OF the master to whom the case
was originally referred that no prac-
teal use can be made Of the land in
question for residential purposes
Violates Amendment
yoiding the ordinance IS made on
ths basis that n this instance it
contravenes the Fourteeth Amend
merlt, and deprives the plaintiff Of
his property without due process
of laW. So
Important paragraphs oE the text
Of the decision AZ they outline the
demarcation which the highest
court may be expected to follow
in respect to property rights and
rights in future zoning
decisions are pointed out by the
National Association OF Real Estate
Boards as follows:
"In the case of this property the
health, safety, convenience and
general welfare OF the inhabitants
of the part of the city affected will
not be promoted by the disposition
made by the ordinance of the locus
in question 1t is made pretty
clear that because of the industrial
and railroad purposes to which the
Immediately adjoining lands to the
south and east have been devoted
and for which they are zoned,
The court therefore holds that
the invasion of the property Of
plaintiff in error was serious and
highly injurious: and since a neces-
sary basis for the support of that
invasion is wanting, the action of
the coming authorities comes with.
in the ban of the Fourteenth Amend
ment and cannot be sustained"
The Supreme Court nevertheless
makes it clear that it upholds the
general principle Of coming.