Court Opinion

ID: 9463976
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 23:21:59.654893+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:38:23.705742
License: Public Domain

FAIRCHILD, Chief Judge,
concurring.
With all respect, I do not subscribe to all the principles and analytical steps described in the opinion prepared for the court by Judge Swygert.
The ultimate question is whether the refusal of the zoning change made a dwelling unavailable to plaintiff Ransom (and others) because of race. If it did, the refusal was unlawful under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).
After trial, the district court found that the Village has 60 tracts zoned for R-5 use and some of it is still vacant and available to plaintiff. The proof showed nine undeveloped tracts in excess of 15 acres, zoned R-5. It was not established whether or not these were suitable for low-cost housing under federal standards. A preliminary question arises as to why plaintiffs should have a second chance at this element of the case. I am satisfied that the mandate of the Supreme Court for further consideration of plaintiffs’ statutory claim is a reason for affording a second inquiry in this area. The majority’s answer appears to be that *1296the Village has the burden on this issue. It seems to be, however, that traditional principles apply and burden should be allocated to plaintiffs.
Arlington Heights is a community of substantial size (64,000 in 1970). It seems clear that housing there is presently almost totally confined to white persons. The substantial percentage of minority persons in the whole metropolitan community and the fact that minority persons are employed in Arlington Heights render it improbable that existing housing segregation there can represent free choice among persons who might reasonably consider living there. Zoning is appropriate for regulating the location of land use within a community. With exceptions, which are rare in this context, it is not appropriate for total exclusion. If on remand it be demonstrated that no suitable site with proper zoning is available, I can accept the conclusion that the denial of a change in zoning was, in the circumstances of this case, unlawful under 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a).