Court Opinion

ID: 9673801
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:18:43.242614+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:24.219889
License: Public Domain

Paul Ward, Justice, dissenting. In 1924 the legislature passed Act 6 (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 19-2804) which says: “It is recognized and hereby declared that the beauty of surroundings constitutes a valuable property right which should be protected by law . ...” To carry out this wholesome mandate the City of Little Rock provides for a Planning Commission composed of trained men in the field of zoning. Anyone aggrieved by this Commission’s action can appeal to the City Board of Directors, and then to Chancery Court. In the case under consideration the Commission twice refused to rezone the subject property, the Board twice refused to overrule the Commission, and the Chancery Court refused relief. On appeal to this Court the rule by which we are to be guided was plainly stated, less than a year ago, in City of North Little Rock v. Habrle, 239 Ark. 1007, 395 S. W. 2d 751: “In resolving this conflict we cannot substitute our judgment for that of the zoning authorities. We must uphold their decision unless we can say that it is arbitrary and capricious.” In that case we also defined the word arbitrary as “decisive and unreasoned.” I find nothing in the majority opinion or in the record from which I can conscientiously say the Commission and the Board acted arbitrarily in attempting to protect the “beauty” of the “surroundings” of the Governor’s Mansion. Certainly their actions cannot be called unreasoned.