Court Opinion

ID: 9686840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 16:08:54.758326+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:22.423211
License: Public Domain

Black, J.
(concurring). I concur in affirmance. Fully adequate reasons appear in Justice Smith’s opinion under heading “Is the ordinance reasonable?”. Once the courts have answered such question in the affirmative, and this Court does by final decision this day, the Constitution takes over and; there is no occasion for consideration of legislative action.
In the last analysis the judiciary, not the legislature, determines when called upon whether a local ordinance is “reasonable” within Const 1908, art 8, § 28. I concede that this view might by some be deemed as being at variance with certain language appearing in the McGraw Case (People v. McGraw, 184 Mich 233, 238) and subsequent quotations thereof. But the veriest hint, that the “reasonable control” .section 28 reserves to local units, must be *367consistent with or determined by present or future statute is something this Court should definitely eliminate. This is particularly true considering upcoming and corresponding section 29 of article 7 of the Constitution of 1963. The concluding sentence of said section 29 reads much the same as the concluding sentence of said section 28, save only for its qualifying words “Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution.”
For convenient comparison, present section 28 and new section 29 are arrayed below:
“Sec. 28. No person, partnership, association or corporation operating a public utility shall have the right to the use of the highways, streets, alleys or other public places of any city, village or township for wires, poles, pipes, tracks or conduits, without the consent of the duly constituted authorities of such city, village or township; nor to transact a local business therein without first obtaining a franchise therefor from such city, village or township. The right of all cities, villages and townships to the reasonable control of their streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such cities, villages and townships.” Const 3908, art 8, § 28.
“Sec. 29. No person, partnership, association or corporation, public or private, operating a public utility shall have the right to the use of the highways, streets, alleys or other public places of any county, township, city or village for wires, poles, pipes, tracks, conduits or other utility facilities, without the consent of the duly constituted authority of the county, township, city or village; or to transact local business therein without first obtaining a franchise from the township, city or village. Except as otherwise provided in this Constitution the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such local units of government.” Const 1963, art 7, § 29.
*368My vote to affirm is cast according to foregoing' convictions of supremacy of Constitution over statute. Any other rule would permit control by statute-of the application of this constitutionally reserved-local right. The Constitution grants no such power to the legislature.