Court Opinion

ID: 9586461
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:11:28.779649+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:45.920505
License: Public Domain

Jordan, Judge,
concurring specially. I agree with the result reached here due to the facts in this particular case. While the business involved in this case is a legitimate and useful business, yet the city under its charter powers does, and indeed must, have the power to regulate the hours and conduct of such business if and when it becomes necessary to preserve the good order, health, peace and morality of the city.
We can make no general ruling applying to coin-operated laundries merely because such a business is not noxious per se. Conditions may vary in different communities and circumstances surrounding such an operation may be completely harmless in one city or area and a crime-breeding spot in another. This was the apparent reasoning of the court in the case of Schacht v. City of New York, 219 NYS2d 53, in which the court held that an ordinance requiring all coin-operated laundries to close between the hours of 12 midnight and 6 a.m. and requiring such laundries to have an attendant upon the premises from 6 p.m. until midnight was a valid exercise of the police power of the city. The evidence in that case included a survey which disclosed that prior to such ordinance many crimes had been committed in unat*867tended coin-operated laundries, including crimes against the person, grand larceny, burglary and malicious mischief; that 50 percent more crimes were committed in unattended laundries than in attended laundromats; and that unattended laundries had become the hangouts for drunks, book makers, narcotic addicts, and other undesirable persons.
Upon a showing of such similar conditions existing in the City of Griffin or any other municipality in this'State, I would most certainly conclude that the enactment of such an ordinance as here involved would be a valid exercise of the police power of that municipality. While it is not meant to suggest that a city must forego action on such matters until intolerable conditions actually exist, yet such action when taken must be supported by a showing that such conditions have become generally associated with the conduct of this particular business in this section and area, as distinguished from the experience of such business operation in another or isolated area. The threat of such harm must be imminent rather than merely anticipatory.
The evidence here showed that the plaintiff in error began operations in 1958 and now operates five places of business in the city and that during that time the fire department had answered 4 calls to these businesses, all involving only minor damage to electric motors and equipment. There was evidence that during this time there were 12 larcenies reported at these businesses, 8 of them in the same location, involving the pilfering of the coin machines. There was no showing that other crimes had been committed in or in connection with such business nor any showing that cases had been made by the city against persons loitering therein, nor any other instances of disorder arising out of the operation of such business.
Under such circumstances, the record fails to show that this legitimate business operation has become noxious or obnoxious to such an extent as would justify the enactment of a specific ordinance singling out and discriminating against this particular büsiness activity. I therefore conclude that, in this case, such an ordinance was arbitrary and unreasonable.