Court Opinion

ID: 9680535
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:33:13.43462+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:29.063557
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice (dissenting). I do not feel that the proof in this case justifies a holding that the city authorities were arbitrary in refusing to rezone the property involved from the designation of “D” Apartment District to “F” Commercial District. The majority apparently depend almost entirely upon the recent case of City of Little Rock v. Andres, 237 Ark. 658, 375 S. W. 2d 370. That opinion contains language which would appear to hold that no part of Broadway is now suitable for residential purposes, but since Andres only actually involved a small area on Broadway, I have considered the “sweeping language” as to the entire street to be nothing more than dicta. If all of the language employed in the Andres case is to be considered a precedent, it appears to me that the City of Little Rock is wasting time in opposing any requests for commercial zoning along Broadway. I respectfully dissent. Ed. F. McFaddin, Associate Justice (dissenting). This case is the logical sequal to City of Little Rock v. Andres, 237 Ark. 658, 375 S. W. 2d 370, in which this Court allowed rezoning. I dissented in that case, and I dissent in this one. There is no need to review the evidence in extenso; but I mention it briefly. Mrs. Hutto lives at 1719 Arch Street, directly across the alley from the property in question. Mrs. T. J. Reynolds owns property at 18th and Broadway, less than a block from the property in question. Mr. Petty lives at 2020 Broadway; Mr. Harding- manages his mother’s property which is located at 1520 Broadway, two blocks from the property in question. All of these witnesses testified as opposed to this rezoning petition. There was other testimony in addition to these property owners: Mr. Cooper, as an engineer of the State Highway Department, testified as to the traffic volume on Broadway; Mr. East, a real estate broker, testified against the rezoning; Mr. DeNoble, the Director of Community Development of the City of Little Rock, testified at length against rezoning and gave most cogent reasons. Mr. Eurman, as the City Planner of the Metropolitan Área Planning Commission, testified against the rezoning of this property. All of the witnesses for the appellant offered strong- evidence against this “strip zoning” which is being accomplished in this case. I think the Chancery Court decided this case against the preponderance of the evidence. But it appears that the Arkansas Supreme Court has rather clearly indicated an intention to rezone Broadway in Little Rock which will result in ‘ ‘ strip zoning, ’ ’ a practice disapproved by all authorities. For the reasons herein stated, I respectfully dissent. Ward, J., joins in this dissent.