Court Opinion

ID: 9777441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:11:10.325678+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:54.004650
License: Public Domain

Carleton Harris, Chief Justice, concurring. I agree that the decree of the Pulaski Chancery Court (Third Division) must be reversed and this conclusion is predicated on the fact that not a single intervenor or property owner in the area objected to the rezoning of appellant’s property to “F” Commercial in February, 1971, and of course, this rezoning was entirely lawful and permissible at the time.1 However, while the majority opinion points out that our holding in this cause does not presently affect the validity of Ordinance No. 12, 739 reclassifying and rezoning various other properties in the South Broadway Study Area (a 63-block area described in the majority opinion), 1 desire, as far as my individual views are concerned, to emphasize that fact. In City of Little Rock v. Gardner, 239 Ark. 54, 386 S.W. 2d 923, I dissented to the holding of the majority that the city authorities were arbitrary in refusing to rezone certain property on Broadway from “D” Apartment District to “F” Commercial District. In that dissent, it was stated: “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 My views in this iespect have not changed, and my position in the litigation now before us is based entirely upon the fact situation set out in the opening sentence of this concurrence. John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring. I concur on the sole basis that the action of the city was arbitrary because there is evidence that there was no change in conditions justifying “dezoning” of appellant’s property after it was zoned F-l commercial but no substantial evidence that there was. To me, it follows, as a matter of course, that it would be equally arbitrary to deny the same zoning classification to appellant’s subsequently acquired adjoining property. The occasion for my registering my agreement by separate opinion stems from my feeling that too much weight is being accorded our previous opinions in cases involving property on Broadway in Little Rock. I consider them res judicata as to the particular property involved in those cases on the basis of the particular evidence before the trial court in each case. Otherwise, they are only legal, not factual, precedent. To me, evidence showing changes since those decisions is wholly beside the point.  This was two years before the present reclassification ordinance was passed.