Court Opinion

ID: 9568919
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:08:38.785931+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:15:04.199109
License: Public Domain

Fontron, J.,
concurring: In agreeing with what has been said and held in the majority opinion, I should like to make two brief comments:
First. The ordinance prohibits peddling and huckstering not only on the rights of way of streets, avenues and boulevards, but on side-walk-ways as well. Manifestly the sale of merchandise on the latter, whether it be ice cream bars, bubble gum, pink lemonade, kool-aid, or what have you, bear little or no relationship to children running or congregating in the streets, or to public safety in general, or to regulation of street traffic. For this reason, as well as those given in the opinion, I deem the ordinance clearly an unreasonable exercise of police power.
Second. I believe the recent case of Watson v. City of Topeka, 194 Kan. 585, 400 P. 2d 689, cited in support of the dissenting opinion, is not in point. The Watson case holds that the common law right of a landowner to deposit needed building materials temporarily in an abutting street is subject to reasonable regulation, but that a street may not be leased by a city for revenue raising purposes.