Opinion ID: 1712743
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: conclusion

Text: The point in question is whether the zoning of appellant's property, in the manner stated, is well founded for the purpose of promoting or protecting the public health, safety, morals or welfare and does not unreasonably interfere with private use of property. Regulations under the police power which have for their object the protection of public health, safety, morals or welfare are basically sound in law when there is a rational relationship between the exactions and the object sought to be accomplished and are not unreasonable and oppressive. 37 Am.Jur. 807. In the case of Anderson v. Shackleford, 74 Fla. 36, 76 So. 343, L.R.A. 1918A, 139, it was held that any doubt as to the extent of a power to be exercised which may affect the common-law right of a citizen should be resolved against the exercise of the power, and that esthetic tastes was not a reasonable basis for the exercise of the police power. Furthermore  in Stengel v. Crandon, 156 Fla. 592, 23 So.2d 835, 837, 161 A.L.R. 1228, it was stated: As we have remarked, it is not our privilege or our purpose to substitute our judgment for that of the legislative body; however, if the `restrictions are so unnecessary to the general welfare of the inhabitants that the curtailment of the rights of the (owner) are unreasonable and arbitrary' the situation is subject to judicial inquiry, for `such restrictions must find their basis in the safety, health, morals or general welfare of the community.' Zoning is an exercise of police power and ordinarily the exercise of such power in zoning has relation to structural qualities or the use of structures when considered in reference to the protection of health, welfare, safety and morals of the public. When regulations are to be imposed in order to promote health, welfare, safety or morals it is necessary that the exactions of the regulation be stated with such certainty that they not be left to the whim or caprice of the administrative agency; also, the ordinance must have some relation to a lawful purpose  to promote health, welfare, safety or morals. See City of West Palm Beach v. State ex rel. Duffey, 158 Fla. 863, 30 So.2d 491. When a regulation has no substantial relation to the public needs within the police power and at the same time restricts the use of private property such regulation must fall. The regulation fixing the size of a sign, based solely on esthetic considerations, the violation of which regulation is made a criminal offense, as in this case, is an unreasonable exercise of the police power as applied to the stated facts. Signs in the zone are not prohibited. The zone is a business and not a residence zone. The sign meets with regulations as to structural safety. It seems that the regulation unreasonably interferes with the use by the appellant of his own property since it fails to protect or promote a public need within the scope of the police power. It has been advanced that City of Miami Beach v. Ocean & Inland Co., 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364 (per Justice Thomas) is authority for holding that aesthetic grounds alone are sufficient grounds for the application of the police power, but a reading of the case does not bear this out. The case involved the restricted use of property at the intersection of Lincoln Road and Collins Avenue of Miami Beach. The Zoning Ordinance restricted the use of the property involved to hotels and apartments. The decision was in 1941 and the Court held the ordinance to be valid and reversed the Chancellor. The ordinance involved in the foregoing case restricted the use of the property to hotels and apartments, but did not attempt to regulate the aesthetic qualities of the hotels and apartments. We find no decisions of this Court holding aesthetic grounds alone to be sufficient in law to warrant the exercise of police power over a property owner in the use of his property. One difficulty to be encountered if we should recognize that the police power may be exercised to solely promote or protect aesthetic qualities is that such qualities are not capable of being tested by any known standards. The word aesthetic was first used by Baumgarten about 1750, to designate the science of sensuous knowledge, the goal of which is beauty, in contrast with logic, whose goal is truth. See Webster's New International Dictionary. The decree appealed should be reversed for such further proceedings as may be appropriate not inconsistent herewith.