Court Opinion

ID: 9722840
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:52:15.226766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:40.398051
License: Public Domain

O’Hara, J.
(dissenting). I am unable to agree with Mr. Justice Kelly. I find no constitutional infirmity in the Saginaw city ordinance.  Rather I agree with the Court of Appeals that the terminology “by reason of inadequate maintenance, dilapidation or abandonment”, is specific and has an ordinary understandable meaning.
I do not read the cases relied upon by Justice Kelly as he does. Osius v. City of St. Clair Shores2 turned upon the proposition that service stations were permitted in a particular zoned area only when authorized by the board of zoning appeals. However, the ordinance provided no standard which the appeal board could apply in making its judgment. The situation here seems to me to be quite different. To bring Osius to bear in this case the ordinance would have to, in legal effect, say “only such dilapidated or abandoned buildings as an appeal board approves are permitted.” The point in Osius was that not all gasoline service stations were excluded —only those permitted by an appellate board empowered to act but without any ascertainable standard of action.
So, too, was the situation in Hoyt Brothers, Inc., v. City of Grand Rapids 3 There it was the city manager who was authorized to grant or withhold permission to solicit funds if the soliciting charity were a “worthy” one. I do not find the case applicable here.
In O’Brien v. State Highway Commissioner,4 it was the executive officer who could say “yes” to one *180applicant to erect or maintain an advertising sign or device and “no” to another without any basis upon which to formulate a judgment. I regard the case as inapposite.
The ordinance we consider here defines in non-abstract terms a condition inimical to the public 'health and welfare. It provides for a hearing and a record which can be reviewed on a basis other than purely subjective judgment.
I would affirm the Court of Appeals for its reasons stated, and on the basis of the authority cited.
Adams and T. E. Brennan, JJ., concurred with O’Hara, J.

 (1956), 344 Mich 693 (58 ALR2d 1079).

 (1932), 260 Mich 447.

 (1965), 375 Mich 545.