Court Opinion

ID: 9544616
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:57:57.176474+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:13:19.040729
License: Public Domain

STEVENS, Judge
(dissenting).
In my opinion the rules set forth in Rubi, cited in the majority opinion with disfavor, are sound. It is noted that the Arizona Supreme Court was asked to review Rubi and declined to do so. In my opinion the record does not warrant a judicial overthrow of the legislative act of the City of Phoenix.
While not controlling, it is of interest to note that the property owners purchased the property with knowledge of the zoning and with the hope that it could be changed with a resulting increase in value. I am impressed that both of the zoning classifications in question are for human habitation. Therefore the improvement of highways and the highly speculative location of a future freeway do not render the property unsuitable for residence purposes. Should a freeway be built, then the physical layout of the land might be the factor which would persuade the legislative body to change the zoning of the area in question.
In all zoning there must be a physical or geographic line separating two adjoining zoning classifications.
We are not informed as to the date of the establishment of the rest home. I would hazard the guess that it was established before the area was annexed by the City of Phoenix.
I am unable to find that degree of departure from proper legislative judgment which is necessary before the courts can substitute their judgment for the judgment of the legislative body.
I would reverse with instructions to dismiss the complaint. -