Court Opinion

ID: 9561181
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:04:42.258612+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:40.772014
License: Public Domain

*7MR. JUSTICE KELLEY
dissenting in part.
I respectfully dissent. I recognize that legislation directed to the promotion of the public health, safety and welfare is presumptively valid. Nopro v. Town of Cherry Hills, 180 Colo. 217, 504 P.2d 344 (1973). While I agree with the majority regarding the portion of the ordinance requiring a six-foot board fence to be erected around a trash collection area, I disagree that the perimeter fencing portion of the ordinance is a valid exercise of the police power.
An exercise of the police power is valid only when it is reasonably related to the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926); Snyder v. Lakewood, 189 Colo. 421, 542 P.2d 371; Wright v. Littleton, 174 Colo. 318, 483 P.2d 953 (1971). Whether or not the means employed is reasonably related to a legitimate police power objective should be determined by balancing the various competing values. Combined Communications Corp. v. Denver, 189 Colo. 462, 542 P.2d 79. (Dissenting opinion.)
I recognize that trash control is a legitimate objective of the police power. But in light of the fencing around the trash receptacle area, I would hold that the expense to the landowner necessitated by the additional perimeter fencing so outweighs the benefits to the public in terms of trash control that it constitutes an unreasonable exercise of the police power. Stevens v. City of Salisbury, 240 Md. 556, 214 A.2d 775 (1965).