Imágenes de páginas

It is thoroughly established in this country that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions are held in subordination to the rights of society. Although one owns property, he may not do with it as he pleases, any more than he may act in accordance with his personal desires. As the interest of society justifies restraints upon individual conduct, so also does it justify restraints upon the use to which property may be devoted. It was not intended by these constitutional provisions to so far protect the individual in the use of his property as to enable him to use it to the detriment of society. By thus protecting individual rights, society did not part with the power to protect itself to promote its general well-being. Where the interest of the individual conflicts with the interest of society, such individual interest is subordinated to the general welfare. . . : .

The purpose of the law is to bring about an orderly development of our cities, to establish residence districts into which business, commercial, and industrial establishments shall not intrude, and to fix business districts and light industrial districts upon which heavy industrial concerns may not encroach. This is no new idea, although it has but recently taken the form of legislation. Everyone who has observed the haphazard development of cities, the deterioration in the desirability of certain residential sections by the encroachment of business and industrial establishments upon and into such sections, resulting in the consequent destruction of property values and in the ultimate abandonment of such sections for residential purposes, has appreciated the desirability of regulating the growth and development of our urban communities. The home seeker shuns a section of a city devoted to industrialism. and seeks a home at some distance from the business center. A common and natural instinct directs him to a section far removed from the commerce, trade, and industry of the community. He does this because the home instinct craves fresh air, sunshine, and well-kept lawns-home association beyond the noise of commercial marts and the dirt and smoke of industrial plants. Fresh air and sunshine adds to the happiness of the home and has a direct effect upon the well-being of the occupants. It is not uncommon to witness efforts of promoters to preserve the residential character of their additions by placing covenants in their deeds restricting the use of the property to residential purposes and, in some instances, requiring the erection of a home according to specified standards. It cannot be denied that a city systematically developed offers greater attractiveness to the home seeker than a city that is developed in a haphazard way. The one compares to the other about as a well-ordered department store compares to a junk-shop. If such regulations stabilize the value of property, promote the permanency of desirable home surroundings, and if they add to the happiness and comfort of the citizens, they thereby promote the general welfare.

When we reflect that one has always been required to use his property as not to injure his neighbors, and that restrictions against the use of property in urban communities have increased with changing social standards, and that the luxuries of one decade become the necessities of another, can it be said that an offer to preserve various sections of a city from intrusion on the part of institutions that are offensive to, and out of harmony with, the use to which such sections are devoted is unreasonable? The present standards of society prompt a revolt against such unbecoming intrusions, and they constitute such a recognized interference with the rights of the residents of such sections as to justify regulation.

The benefits to be derived to cities adopting such regulations may be summarized as follows: They attract a desirable, and assure a permanent, citizenship; they foster pride in, and attachment to, the city; they promote happiness and contentment; they stabilize the use and value of property, and promote the peace, tranquillity, and good order of the city. We do not hesitate to say that the attainment of these objects affords a legitimate field for the exercise of the police power.

This opinion of the Wisconsin Supreme Court shows a realization of a number of conceptions which should rejoice the heart of the social worker. Note that the court points out the social advantages of order; not order in the sense of the absence of violent crime, but order in the sense of orderliness-the architect's

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][merged small]

or planner's sense of order. Note also the emphasis on the social value of the home, particularly the single-family or individual home.

Similarly, the Supreme Court of California upheld the single-family district, that is, the district zoned not only against non-residential uses, but against the multiple-family residential structure. In the case of Miller v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 234 Pacific Reporter, 381, regarding the elastic, so to speak, nature of the police power, based on the fundamental right of the community to promote community welfare, the court said:

In short, the police power, as such, is not confined within the narrow circumscription of precedents, resting upon past conditions which do not cover and control present-day conditions obviously calling for revised regulations to promote the health, safety, morals, or general welfare of the public. That is to say, as a commonwealth develops politically, economically, and socially, the police power likewise develops, within reason, to meet the changed and changing conditions. What was at one time regarded as an improper exercise of the police power may now, because of changed living conditions, be recognized as a legitimate exercise of that power.

The court realized that the police power must be sufficient to meet new and growing needs arising out of urban development, as, for instance, in the following passage:

The increase of our urban population makes regulation necessary. As the congestion of our cities increases, likewise do the problems of traffic control and police, fire and health protection. Comprehensive and systematic zoning aids in the successful solution of these problems, and obviously tends thereby affirmatively to promote the public welfare.

The Supreme Court of Ohio has also had occasion recently to pass upon the validity of zoning ordinances in the case of Pritz v. Messer, 113 Ohio State. The court, speaking through Judge Florence Allen, well known to the members of this Conference, expressed some particularly illuminating thoughts upon the justification of zoning as a means of prevention of the growth of evils, as distinguished from a mere suppression of existing evils. For instance, Judge Allen said, in the opinion of the court:

Reverting to our original consideration, we have to remind ourselves that the question is not whether the slum will certainly be eliminated by such zoning, but whether such zoning reasonably tends toward the elimination of the slum; not whether congestion of traffic and enhanced public health and improved public morals will certainly result from the enactment of such measures, but whether there is a reasonable connection between such measures and the public health, morals, and safety.

Upon mature consideration, after two exhaustive hearings given in this case, we cannot say that there is no relation between the legislation enacted and the public health, safety, and morals. It is true that the slum roots in causes deeper than the mere kind of building found therein. It is true that non-nuisance businesses might better, so far as the health of their own inhabitants is concerned, be conducted in districts where there are no apartment houses and where there is no business life. It is also true, however, that family life is promoted by the separation of families, and by their residence in districts where the open spaces, the possibility of gardening, and the freedom from the society which presses around one in a partial business and tenement district, make for health through recreation and peace of mind.

The entrance of business blocks into a residence district tends to "blight" the district and gradually to invite therein the hazards, both physical and moral, which exist in the sections which combine business with home life.

We cannot say that there is no reasonable relation between the public morals and an attempt to set off for the people of a great city ample parts of the town in which they can always maintain residence districts, unblighted by industry and by the old style of tenement.

Judge Allen also pointed out the importance to healthy social life of spaces, that is, of air and light, as, for instance, in the passage:

If a law regulating the air space which must be allowed in a tenement house has a reasonable relation to health, we cannot say that a measure which will save considerable districts for the city in which the air space is unblocked by massed building construction has no reasonable relation to health. The mere fact that the economic factor looms largest in determining the choice of a residence does not mean that restrictions which give space and air, light, and separation to houses will not eventually shape the kind of building which is done, and benefit the public health.

The opinion concludes with the following passage, again showing the realization of the importance of protecting the future:

This problem must be viewed from the standpoint of coming generations. Regarded from the limited outlook of the immediate present, it is easy to claim with some degree of cogency that there is no relation between these measures and the public health, safety, or morals. Taking a long view into the future, however, and looking back into the past, to remind ourselves what detriment the unrestricted congestion in city life, both of traffic and housing, has already done the public welfare, we do see a real relation between the substantial material welfare of the community and this effort of the city to plan its physical life.

The last of these recent decisions of the highest state courts upholding zoning has been that of the highest court of New York, in the case of Wulfsohn v. Inspector of Buildings of the City of Mt. Vernon, 241 N.Y. 288, also dealing with the creation of single-family districts. The Court quoted a valuable and significant sentence from the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States in Bacon v. Walker, 204 U.S. 311, where, speaking of the police power, that highest of our courts said:

It is not limited to regulations designed to promote public health, public safety, or to the suppression of what is offensive, disorderly or unsanitary, but extends to so dealing with conditions which exist as to bring out of them the greatest welfare of the people by promoting public convenience or general prosperity.

This is a classic expression of the thought that legislation is not merely negative and suppressive, but that it may have the constructive purpose of bringing out, that is, of promoting, the social welfare.

There is room and there is need for much deeper and more thoroughgoing study of social forces in urban development and the extent to which they can be, and should be, controlled by community legislation and community administration. There remains, therefore, a field for tillage by the social workers and the sociologists and the political scientists, the field into which they should have penetrated before, but in which the lawyers and the courts have been permitted to be the pioneers. The city planning and zoning of the future should reflect the lessons resulting from more intensive studies by the social scientists of how, by means of community control, the health and safety and welfare of the people of American urban communities can best be promoted.

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors]


Joseph K. Hart, Associate Editor, "The Survey," New York

My subject is overambitious, hence this paper will attempt not so much a program for the city as a program for developing a program for the city. The large American city was partly inevitable and partly the result of a historical accident. It was inevitable to the extent that humans are social creatures and find their fullest life in being together; it has been accidental by reason of the fact that the steam engine was invented before the significance of electricity had been established. The steam engine works at close range. It pulls people to it, makes them live near by, piles them up in heaps about its own location. The steam engine took advantage of man's native sociability and piled us up in these great cities before we became aware of what was happening.

Electricity, on the other hand, can work at almost any distance, up to some hundreds of miles, thus making room for the building of homes, the maintenance of open spaces for play and recreation, and the secure rootage of a social world. If, then, electricity had been exploited before the steam engine was invented, the most aggravated evils of modern city congestion might have been avoided. But the steam engine came first: it got in its centralizing work when there was no equally powerful countervailing force; and even though the steam engine may, to a greater or less degree, be presently discarded as the dominant instrument of industrial energy, yet its economic and social results have already become "vested"-intrenched in our economic order and dominant in our mental attitudes. Our economic destinies are now tied up with cities; and, for most of us, no matter what the privations or the inconveniences may be, "we can't live anywhere but in the city!" The future of our civilization cannot be separated from the future of cities.

Evidently, then, if human living is to be tolerable at all, the city must be redeemed from at least the grossest of the evils that have come of the century of the steam engine. Such redemption can come to us in one way only, namely, by escaping the mental bondages that now bind us to the task of uncritically accepting and defensively maintaining all these things which the steam engine has produced in the city and in us.

Those bonds are of two sorts: cultural and economic. Almost all of us, whether we live in cities or not, are caught by the cultural glamors of the city, its excitements, its personal and social stimulations, and we enjoy the temperamental outcomes of living in close associations with our fellows. We get used to these things and we do not care to give them up. It may be we cannot.

But existent economic interest hold many of us, at least, still more firmly to the city. The rising prices of real estate hypnotize all but the most intelligent men and women; and other similar chances to make a fortune easily are many --including the opportunity to make a killing, in more senses than one, in some spectacular crime. But, beyond all this, in what we may describe euphemistic

ally as the legitimate side of city industry, for most of us "making a living" is easier in the city than in the country or small town, as things go. The city dominates its world, economically, today; it pays the highest market price for all common forms of labor, and it holds out promises of exorbitant rewards for any unusual forms of labor, or service, or what we may call loyalty. Most of us have no intention of turning down the chance to "make a living," whatever the incidental terms of the contract may be. That is the city as it stands.

But does it need to stand that way? Modern inventions make pertinent the suggestion that some of these formerly binding factors no longer possess the inescapable power that they once exercised over men's minds. The dominance of the steam engine can now be escaped in respect of our chances for making a living; industry need no longer pile itself up about a steam power plant. It can, by the use of electric power, be decentralized to any required degree, and be made subordinate to the happiness of workers living in smaller units of population. There is, today, no inescapable economic barrier to such industrial decentralization: the only actual barriers are those of the mind-the habits of individual minds and the customs and grooves of community mind. And, since these mental barriers are not natural, i.e., not metaphysical, but are the structures of the last hundred years, they can be torn down and replaced by other habits and customs-if we want them and if our intelligences and wills can be enlisted in the processes.

There is, to be sure, a pseudo-economic aspect to this situation, namely, the enormous investment in city property, the piling up of wealth which is the capitalization of the congestion of population, and the enormous financial streams that pour through city channels. All these things give us all a sense of the power of our own age, of our own cities, of our own nation, of ourselves as a people, and we do not like to think of seeing these great structures disturbed. But these things have been a matter of drift. The control of the economic life of the country has gradually drifted into the hands of the city; the life of the country is dictated from the city; and all the rest of the nation must pay its appropriate toll to the city. Of course, the city likes this, and claims it as its right, but the rest of the country, for all its occasional whimperings, likes it too. The quarrel between the city and the country is not a real conflict. It is a stage battle, mostly.

For example, when, some four or five years ago, the city of X was severely challenged by a rural revolt in the state of YZ, the financial interests of X were in no wise cheered by the thought that the farmers and villagers of YZ were likely to achieve a larger independence; they were amazed at the temerity of a people that dared to call in question the provisions which a great city had made for its dependencies; and there is no current record that the social workers, or the civic leaders, or the educators of X expressed any sympathy for the rebels of YZ. Moreover, presently, when the citizens of XY had the chance to decide whether they would fight for their freedom-and take the consequences-or

« AnteriorContinuar »