Imágenes de páginas

vision of a 4-foot side yard and a 6-foot court for the first story applies to nothing, for one-story buildings with courts are not built. For four-story buildings the provisions amount to 1 foot 9 inches for side yards and 2 feet 3 inches for courts for each story of height. The model law sets 90 per cent as the maximum coverage for a corner lot and 65 per cent for an interior lot.

Zoning laws in many cases ignore the whole question of bulk regulation, that is, height and area of buildings, including regulation of yards and courts. Others cover these items but follow the old standards. One zoning law provides that "a side yard shall in no case be less than 1 and inches wide for each foot of building height." That means 4 feet 2 inches for a building 40 feet high.


There are zoning laws, however, that recognize living standards and provide that no tenement shall be over four stories high, that it shall not cover over 50 per cent of the lots, and that all rooms used for dwelling purposes shall have windows equal to one-eighth of the floor area of the room and opening upon a street or yard or upon a court. Such courts shall be: for an outer court, 6 feet wide for the first story and 4 feet for each additional story; for an inner court, 10 feet wide for the first story and 5 feet for each additional story. With a 50 per cent coverage and the lighting and ventilating provisions outlined it may be said that the only satisfactory provisions ever made for tenements are to be found in zoning laws.

But zoning laws have a new accomplishment to their credit. They recognize the existence of the one- and two-family house. They provide for a coverage of the lot of often 25 per cent for a one-family house, 30 per cent for a two-family house, and provide front yards, often of 25 feet in depth, side yeards of 7 to 10 feet or more, and generous rear yards. That this movement is spreading may be evidenced from Massachusetts, where there are ninety-one planning boards and where 61.7 per cent of the people live under zoning.

Zoning laws are doing more than all these things for housing. These have to do with bulk provisions. Use zoning is making a distinct contribution to improved conditions for housing of all kinds. The home, whether for one family or twenty families, which is located between a garage and a laundry isn't a home. It is a place where life and limb, nerves, morals, education-all that distinguishes between living and existing-are in jeopardy. Until we adopted use zoning no dwelling of any kind and no use of any kind had any protection from any other kind of use, except under the slow-working nuisance law. And the lawyers say you can't prejudge a nuisance. You have to let it grow up and then stop it if you can. Zoning, thus, has established standards that mean something. When all zoning laws embody these standards we will have made some general progress, just as we are now making it in a few places.

Zoning laws are pushing us ahead in other respects. They are a part of city planning, and they are emphasizing the importance of the plan. We plan in some way every little element of the community-the house, the store, the factory

but we have no planned communities. We are just beginning to plan them. Zoning laws give the man of little means the first protection he has ever had from the intrusion of uses which would injure his home life and reduce property values, thus wiping out his equity. The speculator harps on the right of the pɔɔr man to build on a small lot, then he lays out lots which injure the poor man and charges as much for them as if they were of a usable size. When the speculative builder has to build on a lot of decent size, with a proper set-back and proper side and rear yards, the workingman has a chance to have a decent home. Zoning laws offer these things and will provide them whenever properly drafted and supported.

As to the housing problem, we have made and catalogued all sorts of studies of terrible conditions, but we have proposed almost no programs for getting at the causes and shutting off the production of bad conditions, which are the symptoms of the disease that lies behind them.

As C. H. Whitaker said on the wrapper of his book, the only book we have produced dealing with the fundamentals of the subject: "The more houses we built in the United States, the more houses cost to build; so the poorer grew the quality, so the smaller grew the size, so the smaller grew the rooms. Then came flats and apartments: the more we built, the poorer they grew, the fewer grew the rooms, the smaller grew their size. And all the time, rents grew higher, and higher, and higher; and the process still goes on as far as rents are concerned, and will still go on, unless-Is it a joke? Or do you think that we must continue to live in houses?"

The four- and eight-room apartment of the beginning of the century has been replaced by the one- to four-room apartment, the latter having a higher rental than the former. So it goes, and so it will continue to go if we do not get at the basis of the problem. The only thing that will keep apartments from being built in one cubic foot of space is the fact that humans can't get into them, and, under the present system, when the irreducible minimum has been reached, the rentals per apartment will be higher than they are now for one- to four-room apartments, just as the present rentals of one- to four-room apartments are higher than they formerly were for four- to eight-room apartments.

Why is it? It is because we have turned over to private speculation the only commodity without which we cannot live, which is not perishable, and which cannot be increased. So, when a man gets some of it and doesn't want to use it, he can keep it as long as he likes and he knows that would-be users will ultimately pay him his price, for they cannot make land for themselves; it can't filter in like air, and it isn't publicly provided, like water.

This is recognized by European, English, and Canadian officials and social workers. It is recognized by some people in this country. But only Pittsburgh and Scranton in this country have done anything about it. It is our right to speculate in land and to appropriate to our private use the increments of value

created solely by community activities; while the rights of the people to life and happiness, asserted in the Declaration of Independence, were not carried into the Constitution, and are at present of very little potency.

In the meantime this great conference and thousands of workers are giving themselves to the care of the by-products of our system of things with little thought of the cause of all their problems, but often, in the back of their minds, the unexpressed prayer that God will continue to give them such noble work to do. There are doctors and other types of workers who do the same.

What are planning and zoning? Planning and zoning are the orchestration of community living, of all the physical things needed in community life. Take a modern orchestra as an illustration. There are the violins, the violas, the cellos, the basses, the harps, the wood and brass instruments, and also the drums, the cymbals, the triangle, and the tambourine. Let these instruments be placed hit-or-miss, where they will, and let each one play what it likes, how it likes, when it likes, in the effort to assert its constitutional rights, then there results disharmony, painful and nerve-wrecking chaos. But let all these instruments be properly grouped, let them all contribute, each its part of a grand symphony, and the result, with every instrument exerting itself to the utmost, is pleasing concord and harmony.

Most of these instruments alone may function exquisitely. Some do not. One seldom hears of a drum or triangle solo. Such instruments have their function only in relation to the whole. So it is with the parts of the physical city. Many of these parts work splendidly alone. Some of them do not, as may be said of the drum, the cymbals, the triangle, and the tambourine. They play their part in a well-rounded, comprehensive community life. But when all parts of the city are properly grouped, when they all supplement and complement each other, we get that symphonic result which is genuine community life. Community life, well rounded, abundant, satisfying, harmonious, is the object for bringing all these parts into being. They should not be brought into being for themselves alone; and yet how long we have been in learning the importance of their arrangement and their proper functioning of their orchestration, which we call planning and zoning.

The aim of every social movement must be to get us somewhere, sometime. If it is not we justify Professor A. W. Small's assertion that "if it were not commonplace it would be astonishing that after so many thousands of years of human history we have no consensus as to why we are living at all." Our planning and zoning movements are promising to get us somewhere along the line of human progress. Their ultimate fruition will depend upon all of us. If we more and more work on constructive lines, and less and less on no-thoroughfares, on the many culs-de-sac which now absorb so much of our attention, planning and zoning and many other useful things may be brought to fruition, with benefit to humanity.



Alfred Bettman, Lawyer, Cincinnati

In our country every piece of legislation or administration act has to run the gauntlet of the courts and has to meet a challenge as to its constitutionality. There are in our written constitutions some vague clauses, generally referred to as the "due process of law" provisions. To supply some sort of standard or test of compliance with these vague constitutional requirements, the courts and lawyers have developed the formula that legislation regulating persons or property must, in order to be held constitutional, bear some substantial relation to the promotion of the public health, public safety, public convenience, public morals, public prosperity, or general welfare.

This customary sequence of events has taken place in the case of zoning legislation. Zoning is the control, by means of a comprehensive plan of development, of the height of buildings, the lot occupancy of buildings, such as set-back lines, side yards, rear yards, and courts, and the uses of buildings, such as residential, commercial, and industrial. Street congestion of an intolerable magnitude, the premature blighting of residential districts, leading, in acute cases, to slum conditions, and other familiar phenomena of growing cities made some control obviously imperative. It was not, however, the social scientist or the social worker who either foresaw these developments or called attention to the need of doing something about them. In fact, the first pressing and effective promotion of zoning came from the economic interests of groups, such as the owners of property on Fifth Avenue, New York City, who realized the avoidable destruction of real property values incident to unregulated building development. Then the city planners and zoners set themselves to the task of studying the problem and meeting the need, having some precedents in similar regulations in European countries as a starting-point. Inevitably and from the very beginning, zoning legislation was attacked in the courts, and the lawyers professionally called upon to defend these measures sought to discover and state the relationship of zoning to the public health and welfare and the other public benefits traditionally considered as within the scope and purposes of that legislative power known as the police power. The courts, in passing upon the cases, gave judicial expression to some of these relationships.

Naturally, this study given by the lawyers and courts to the relationships between zoning and social welfare have reacted upon the city planners and the zoners, with the result that these latter, in the preparation of their zone and city plans, have become increasingly conscious of the social purposes of zoning and city planning and have, to an increasing extent, molded and made their plans with the conscious and deliberate purposes of promoting the public health, welfare, and so on. Consequently, in the course of the zoning movement the

zone plans have become increasingly, genuinely, and thoroughly related to the social welfare. That is the present state of the movement, so that the briefs of the lawyers and the opinions of the courts constitute today the places where these relationships have been studied and stated, rather than the essays of social scientists or the literature of the social sciences.

While for a short time there may have been some doubt about the constitutionality of zoning, particularly use zoning—that is, the regulation by districts of the uses of property—and while a few courts may still be hesitant, the overwhelming weight of authority is today in favor of the validity of this legislation. The National Conference of Social Work will therefore be interested in some of the expressions of the courts upon the purposes and constitutional justifications of zoning. In this paper five decisions of the highest state courts will be referred to and quoted.

In State ex rel. Civello and others v. New Orleans, 97 Southern Reporter, 440, a group of six cases, all on the New Orleans zoning ordinance, involving residential district regulations, and arising out of the exclusions of a grocery store, a fruit stand, an oyster counter, a filling station, and an ice factory, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in that part of its opinion relating to this problem of the relationship of the ordinance to public health, safety, comfort, and public welfare, said:

In the first place, the exclusion of business establishments from residence districts might enable the municipal government to give better police protection. Patrolmen's beats are larger and therefore fewer, in residence neighborhoods than in business neighborhoods. A place of business in a residence neighborhood furnishes an excuse for any criminal to go into the neighborhood, where otherwise a stranger would be under the ban of suspicion. Besides, open shops invite loiterers and idlers to congregate; and the places of such congregation need police protection. In the second place, the zoning of a city into residence districts and commercial districts is a matter of economy in street paving. Heavy trucks, hauling freight to and from places of business in residence districts, require the city to maintain the same costly pavement in such districts that is required for business districts; whereas, in the residence districts, where business establishments are excluded, a cheaper pavement serves the purpose. It is pointed out too that the fire hazard is greater in the neighborhood of business establishments than it is in residence districts. A better and more expensive fire department-better equipment and younger and stronger men-are needed in the business centers, where the buildings are taller, than in the residence districts.

Aside from considerations of economic administration, in the matter of police and fire protection, street paving, etc., any business establishment is likely to be a genuine nuisance in a neighborhood of residences. Places of business are noisy; they are apt to be disturbing at night; some of them are malodorous; some are unsightly; some are apt to breed rats, mice, roaches, flies, ants, etc.

State ex rel. Carter v. Harper, Building Inspector of Milwaukee, 128 Wis. 148 sustained the Milwaukee zoning ordinance over the contest of one who wished to enlarge a dairy and milk pasteurizing plant located on the border line between a residential and industrial district so that the enlargement would fall within the residential district. Amongst other things, in the course of its opinion, the court stated:

« AnteriorContinuar »