~

 

/ UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY

04215794Protecting Residential Districts

BY
LAWRENCE VEILLER

Nationa, Houstnc ASSsocIATION PUBLICATIONS
No. 26
Prick Fiv—E CENTS
SEPTEMBER, 1914
105 East 22p Street, NEw , York Crry

iv

X004215794PAPER READ AT SIxTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE

ON City PLANNING
May, 1914NIG) 2

Protecting Residential Districts

BY LAWRENCE VEILLER

Secretary, National Housing Association, New York City.

pursuit of happiness include those important consid-
erations which our English cousins in their recent
town-planning legislation refer to as the “amenities’’?

This is a question which many people are beginning to ask
themselves in America.

It is only in very recent years that we have been conscious
of the necessity of doing something to protect our citizens in
the enjoyment of the right to lead a quiet, contented, rational
existence and bring up their families free from the noise, dis-
comfort and nerve-racking atmosphere which generally sur-
rounds our industries.

Heretofore we have gone along in a truly American fashion
of mixing up in a haphazard way business and residential dis-
tricts without regard to the rights of others or the welfare of

DD OES the constitutional right to life, liberty and the

the community.

But during the last few years in a few of our larger cities
we have awakened to the folly of this disorderly and thought-
less method of living and are beginning to ask ourselves
whether these discomforts of living are really necessary after
all. >

I must frankly confess that we haye cast somewhat longing
eyes at the shores of Germany and wondered whether there
was something so essentially different in the atmosphere of
Germany and America that it would be impossible for us to
eneraft upon American civilization the well-established prin-
ciple of zoning that has been in operation for a generation or
more in that country.

“A man’s a man for a’ that,” and it has seemed to some of
us that there was not such an essential difference between
the human characteristics of the German and the American
as to make it a frantic imagining or Utopian dream for even
us in America to expect that the time might come when we2

might insure to our citizens the right to live in a peaceful and
untrammeled atmosphere. When one comes to consider it,
after all it is not the most rational method to employ, the
method that we have heretofore followed and considered as
the only method, namely, of mixing up in a heterogeneous
mass the places where our people live with all sorts of objec-
tionable industries.

I think if we frankly search the records we shall find that
this is not really, after all, a new impulse, but only a wider
realization of a very desirable consummation to be sought
after.

From the earliest days even in America those of us who
have not been especially enamored of noise and of a hurly-
burly life, have sought so far as mere man could, acting alone
and without the powerful support of government, to control
his own neighborhood and protect the little home into which
he had put his earnings (or the large, luxurious mansion into
which he had put somebody else’s earnings, as the case may
have been) and where he expected to bring up a family and
live for the rest of his life.

And so we find for many years in America an effort through
private covenant, or what is popularly known as “property
restrictions,” to secure the result desired.

Unfortunately this method, which has been followed to a
greater or less degree throughout all parts of the country, has
not proved entirely satisfactory; being a private arrangement
between private individuals and being only a mutual agree-
ment or contract, itshas<proved to be easily dissolvable. Fur-
thermore, in many ‘ak Gir states the courts have held that
property restrictions imposed some years back by the then
owners of property are no longer binding and of effect when
the neighborhood conditions have changed and when the suc-
ceeding property owners have desired to dissolve the terms of
such agreement.

So it is not strange, with the increasing difficulties of city
life, that men have turned to other methods and endeavored
to see whether they could not find a means by which the right
of a man to the enjoyment of his property in peace and quiet
might be saved to him and his family and not be easily in-

vaded.

   
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  

sy iy3

Private covenant having proved ineffective, the use of the
police power of the state has finally been sought.

How far the police power will stretch in America is still a
question to be decided. One thing is certain, it will not extend
beyond what the engineers call “the limits of elasticity.”

But just how far will it stretch? What can we do in
America, without constitutional limitations, to conserve to
property owners and to dwellers in our cities the right to live
in a peaceful, quiet, secluded neighborhood free from the in-
vasions of business and of industry and with the amenities of
civilization?

That the police power cannot be stretched to cover merely
zsthetic considerations is clear from the decisions of our
COMEES:

low fan, tien, may 1b extend

Our most eminent jurists agree in the opinion that it may
extend to almost infinite reach so long as it clearly includes
matters which affect public health, safety, morals or the gen-
eral welfare, provided always, of course, that the exercise of
such power be a reasonable one.

As yet no one has sought to define the meaning of that im-
portant term “general welfare.” It is a most important one
for those interested in progress. I take it to be the American

equivalent of our English city planners’ “amenity.”

What Has Been Done in the United State:

Such efforts as have been made in the United States to
extend the use of the police power in this direction have all
been within the past few years, the earliest attempt having
been in the state of California five years ago. Here in 1909
the first effort to establish residential districts and to exclude
therefrom certain industries was made in the city of Los
Angeles.

In the year following a similar attempt was made in
Michigan, in the city of Grand Rapids, and more recently, viz.,
in 1913, there seems to have been an epidemic of regulation of
this kind, the states of New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota and
[llinois having all passed legislation of this nature.

So far as I can ascertain, all these various attempts were4

made in an unrelated way by each state, without knowledge of
what the other was doing; in fact, in most cases I believe with-
out knowledge of what California had done four years pre-
vious. And we all furnished that delicious illustration of
fancying ourselves pioneers blazing new trails and then dis-
covering afterward that we were only following in the foot-
steps of earlier adventurers.

The limitations of this meeting permit me only to outline
some of the distinctive features of these different schemes.

California Leads the Way

The Los Angeles ordinance differs in many respects from
the districting plans of other cities in that it lays the greater
emphasis upon the establishment of industrial districts, where-
as the schemes embodied in the laws of other states concern
themselves with residential districts. The difference, however,
after all, is chiefly a question of emphasis.

The entire city of Los Angeles, with the exception of two
suburbs, is divided into industrial and residential districts. In
addition to the industrial districts there are what are termed
“residence exceptions”; in other words, small spots where
certain unobjectionable industries are permitted.

The industrial districts vary greatly in shape and size. The
largest has an area of several square miles and measures five
miles in length and two miles in width. The smallest district
comprises a single lot. Asa whole the industrial districts are
Srouped im One part of the city. Phe residence exceptions
are small, with the exception of one which is about a half mile
in area. None of them covers a greater area than two city
blocks, and in many cases each does not occupy more than one
or two lots.

The line that is drawn between the industrial district and
the residential district in the Los Angeles scheme is that all
kinds of business and manufacturing are permitted without
restriction in the industrial districts, while in the residential
districts certain specified businesses of a distinctly objection-
able nature are prohibited. Those industries which are not
enumerated in the prohibition are permitted.

In the residential districts all manufacturing but that of5

the lightest kind is forbidden, but less offensive business and
manufacturing establishments which are excluded from the
residential districts may be carried on in the “residence excep-
tions,” which seem to be a sort of “twilight zone” between the
two extremes.

The Law Retroactive

A distinctive feature of the Los Angeles scheme is that
certain industries, even if already established in the residential
district before the district is created, are to be excluded; that
is, it becomes unlawful to maintain these industries even
though they may have been in operation for many years before
the district was created.

Among those excluded are the following: Any works or
factory using power other than animal power in its operation,
or any stone crusher or rolling mill, machine shop, planing
mill, carpet-beating establishment, hay barn, wood yard,
lumber yard, public laundry, wash house, coal yard, briquette
yard, riding academy, or any winery or place where wine or
brandy is made or manufactured.

So much for the California enactment. As it is the only
one which has been tested in operation through any consid-
erable period of time and is also one which has been tested in
the highest state courts, it assumes especial importance for
the rest of the country.

t differs in a number of marked respects from the attempts
that have been made in other cities, and before discussing the
limitations of such statutes and the essential principles to be
observed in formulating them if they are to be sustained by
our courts, it may perhaps not be inappropriate to briefly state
; been done in the other states.
an in 1910 the Common Council of Grand Rapids,

11°an
<

In Michi
without any specific authority from the legislature, passed an
ordinance establishing residence districts, and subsequently
this ordinance was amended by creating additional residence
districts. The validity of the ordinance was attacked in the
courts, and the Superior Court of Grand Rapids held that the
ordinance was unconstitutional and void, among other reasons
on the ground that “such ordinance constitutes a taking away

of the property of relator without due process of law, in viola-6

tion of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the
Constitution of the United States.”

As the court did not advance any reasons for reaching this
conclusion, and as the case was not carried to the highest
court, and the whole issue was affected by the fact that the
Common Council had received no specific grant of police
power from the legislature to enact an ordinance of this kind,
this decision is of no great value to us except as indicating
some of the things not to do in grappling with this problem.

The Wisconsin Act

The legislature of Wisconsin in 1913 (Chapter 743) passed
an act authorizing cities of 25,000 or more to set aside exclusive
Kesidenmar districts. [he act thus alfects the cities or
Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse, Madison, Oshkosh, Racine,
Sheboygan and Superior. Part of the act reads as follows:

vithe Common Council mi cittes of : . . 25,000 of more are
authorized to set apart portions of such cities to be used
exclusively for residential purposes, and to prohibit the erec-
tion and maintenance of factories, docks or other similar con-
cerns within such districts. Such cities may in like manner
restrain the encroachment of business houses upon purely
residence districts, require the consent of the majority of land
owners and residents of such districts, once improved, before
such business 1s permitted on such streets, and make as low a
unit as one block. The power granted may be exercised upon
the initiative of the Common Council or upon the petition of
tem OF more tesidents in the district or block to be affected.”
And the act goes on to say that “the enactment of ordinances
excluding factories, docks or other similar concerns from
residential districts shall be a final and conclusive finding that
factories operated in such district are detrimental to the health,
comfort and welfare of the residents of said city.”

We understand that under this power the city of Mil-
waukee either has recently or is about to establish a number
of residential districts. Neither the act nor the ordinance has
as yet been tested, so far as we are able to ascertain.7,

Minnesota Follows Suit

At about the same time that the state of Wisconsin was
acting, the state of Minnesota was taking similar action. The
legislature of that state in 1913 passed an act (Statutes 1913,
Chapter 420) empowering cities with a population in excess
of 50,000 to establish exclusive residential and industrial dis-
tricts. This law therefore applies to the cities of Minneapolis,
St. Paul and Duluth. Acting under authority of this law the
City Council of Minneapolis on February 28, 1913, passed an
ordinance establishing certain residential districts. So far as
we can ascertain, the validity of this ordinance has not as yet
been tested.

The state of Illinois in the same year also passed an act
empowering cities to establish residential districts and exclude
therefrom certain other classes of buildings, but this was
vetoed by the Governor upon an opinion from the attorney-
general that such an act would be unconstitutional.

As a resident of the effete East, I would not for a moment
have you believe that these important efforts in the cause of
progress have come only from the Far West or Middle West.

New York State Acts

At the same time that Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois
were acting, the Empire State of New York was taking similar
action. In the Housing Law for Second Class Cities (Chapter
774 of the Laws of 1913) will be found a similar plan for the
establishment of residential districts. In that act a plan is
provided for the establishment of “residence districts,’ and
the erection of any building other than a private dwelling or
two-family dwelling in such districts is prohibited. The resi-
dence district may be made as small as one side of a city block.

Acting under authority of this law the cities of Syracuse
and Utica have passed ordinances establishing such residential
districts. Here, too, so far as can be learned, no attempt has
been made to test the constitutionality of this provision,
though many “sea-lawyers” have rendered horseback opinions,
or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say sea-leg
opinions, that any such scheme is unconstitutional.
The great city of New York has also taken similar action8

within the last two months, the legislature of 1914 having
passed an enabling act authorizing the Board of Estimate and
Apportionment of that city to divide the city into districts
and to regulate the use of buildings in each district on a
different basis. A commission is to be appointed by the local
authorities of New York City to determine the boundaries of
districts and to work out the details of this plan.

Canada the Pioneer

lt would be inappropriate in this. presence for me to
attempt to discuss what has been done in the Dominion of
Canada along similar lines, except to say that I am informed
Canada took action in this direction nearly five years before
the United States even thought of it. As early as 1904 the
legislature of the Province of Ontario amended the Municipal
Act by adding thereto a new section known as Section 541-A.
This authorized the Councils of cities and towns by a two-
thirds vote of the whole Council to pass and enforce such
by-laws as they might deem expedient ... in the case of cities
only “to prevent, regulate and control the location, erection
and use of buildings as laundries, stores and manufactories” ;
ana later on from year to year the scope of the act has beén
enlarged so as to apply also to “stables for horses for delivery
purposes, butcher shops, blacksmith shops, forges, dog
kennels, hospitals, or infirmaries for horses, dogs or other
animals.”

It was also provided that the location, erection and con-
struction or use of any building in contravention of any such
by-law might be restrained by injunction proceedings at the
instance of the municipality; and it was further provided that
none of the above provisions should apply to any buildings
then erected or used for any of the purposes mentioned so
long as their present use continued.

In 1912 this provision was extended by empowering cities
having a population of not less than 100,000 to “‘prohibit, regu-
late and control the location, on certain streets to be named in
the by-laws, of apartment or tenement houses, and of garages
to be used for hire or gain.” :
Acting under authority of this law the city of Toronto in9

1913—and I imagine also even during the present year—has
passed a number of by-laws of this nature.

If we include also the general enactment in the building
code of the city of Baltimore, state of Maryland, by which it
is provided that no permit for the erection of any building may
be given by the local authorities without the approval of the
Building Inspector and the Mayor that its erection will not
increase the fire hazard, depreciate the surrounding land values
or have a disadvantageous effect upon the general welfare of
the residents in the immediate vicinity, we have included in
our summary of the enactments on this subject all those which
the writer, using the most diligent effort, has been able to get
track of.

Essential Principles Involved

What, it may be asked, are the important considerations
to be borne in mind in seeking in America to utilize the police
power to regulate the character of neighborhoods and to pro-
tect citizens in the enjoyment of residential districts free from
the invasion of objectionable industries or occupations, and
how can we so formulate our enactments that they will not be

ubject to adverse decision by our courts?

It will be seen from a study of the different enactments
that have been described that they differ in many respects
and in some essential particulars.

In the first place, should we limit the industries or uses
which we exclude from a residential district to certain speci-
fied ones that may be enumerated in the statute or shall we
prohibit all industries in our residential district and forbid
there any use other than for purposes of residence!

In the California law we find that only those industries are
excluded that are enumerated, and presumably only those are
enumerated which the authors of the law believe can be
shown clearly to be objectionable from the point of view of
public health, safety, morals or w elfare. In the Minneapolis
ordinance and in the Milwaukee ordinance the same principle
is followed and specific industries are enumerated.

It has become an axiom, however, in legislative experience,
that specific enumerations are extremely dangerous, for theIO

very simple reason that the enumerator is apt to forget many
points which should be enumerated and may possibly include
in the enumeration things which are subject to attack. The
California law illustrates this admirably.

In the Los Angeles ordinance it will be recalled that where
the objectionable industries prohibited in the residential dis-
tricts are enumerated we find among other things “any winery
or place where wine or brandy is made or manufactured.”

The question at once suggests itself, why exclude brandy
and permit whiskey?

It may be that the author of the law had his individual
preferences, but we submit that this should not be a controll-
ing consideration!

Viewed from any point of view, the Ualifornia enumeration
or any enumeration has its weak points. How are we to treat
tinder such a plan the case where a man has invested his
money in an attractive dwelling with the idea of permanently
living there for the rest of his days; then suddenly he finds
his property values injured, the whole character of the street
endangered, because someone has chosen to construct a small
retail store in one of the houses? One store of this kind leads
to another, and within a short time the residences are driven
out.

The plan of enumeration would not cover such a case, un-
less the very general description were used of any place where
anything is sold, but that would be too sweeping, as many
important business transactions are consummated in private
residences.

The writer questions also whether it would be possible in
all cases to show that all of the industries enumerated in the
Los Angeles enactment are in themselves dangerous to life,
health or safety or injurious to the general welfare.

In the New York Second Class Cities Law everything but
private dwellings and two-family dwellings and private
garages or stables at the rear of the lot is excluded. In this
act no attempt is made to enumerate objectionable industries
or objectionable uses of property in residential districts, but
all uses other than for purposes of residence are by the act
itself excluded.II

The Problem of the Multiple-Dwelling

An important feature of this scheme which should not be
lost sight of is carried out in the New York law, namely, the
exclusion from strictly private-residence districts of huge
multiple-dwellings such as tenement houses and apartment
houses and hotels.

A similar objective was evidently at the base of the more
recent Toronto enactments, as the ordinance of that city
applies to the prohibition of tenement houses and apartment
houses and public garages and stables.

None of the statutes which have been cited, neither the
ordinance of California nor the laws of Wisconsin or Min-
nesota, will be of any value in the effort to keep apartment
houses, tenements and hotels out of private-residence dis-
tricts, as the laws of these states simply give to the local
authorities in the cities affected the right to differentiate resi-
dential and industrial districts. The multiple-dwelling, either
apartment house, tenement house or hotel, is of course a resi-
dential use of property, and such a building could not therefore
be excluded:

It is of very great importance in many of our rapidly
developing cities to keep apartment houses and hotels out of
the private-residence districts and to discourage so far as we
legally can the erection of multiple-dwellings. Notwithstand-
ing its manifest convenience and great advantage from many
points of view, the multiple-dwelling is unquestionably a
source of detriment to the development of any city and inter-
feres greatly with proper social conditions and the develop-
ment Of tiie Civic Spirit. A city cannot be a eity of home
owners where the multiple-dwelling flourishes.

Of course there are cities such as New York and some of
the older Eastern cities where the multiple-dwelling is the
chief type of house that we can expect to find at the present
day in the future development of the city. Here, therefore,
it ill be necessary to distinguish between the prohibition of
multiple-dwellings and the prohibition of industries. In work-
ing out regulations for New York City, for instance, the local
authorities will undoubtedly have to deal with this somewhat
puzzling question.12

Thus we see there is a wide variance in the practice of the
West and the East. Which is the better course to follow?

It depends very largely on how far we want to go. If we
want to keep a residence district strictly for residence pur-
poses, the method employed in the New York law is more
likely to accomplish the result than the method employed in
the Los Angeles, Milwaukee and Minneapolis ordinances.

From the point of view of sustaining such an enactment
in the courts there is much to be said in favor of the latter
provided the industries enumerated can be clearly shown to
be injurious to health, safety, morals or the general wellare.

It is interesting and significant to note that the enabling
acts in all three states, namely, Wisconsin, Minnesota and
New York, are couched in very broad terms and empower the
cities affected to exclude from residential districts practically
all buildings other than those used for residences.

Shall the Law be Retroactive?

The next question which confronts us, and one which is of
great moment, is, shall our statutes be retroactive? Shall we
reach back into the past and disturb industries or uses of prop-
erty which have been maintained for many years past? In
other words, shall we, after a given date, no matter what the
conditions, exclude from a newly created residential district
all industries or objectionable uses to which property may be
put?

This has been the method employed in California. It is
also the method employed in the Milwaukee and Minneapolis

oO ae 1s SE 1, ao 5 : f . .
ordinances, but it should be noted that these ordinances in
excluding certain industries from residential districts are

4 1

limited solely to those industries which can be shown to be

objectionable from the point of view of public health, morals
or the general welfare.

Having, however, once enumerated these industries, they
may not be maintained in the residential districts, no matter
whether the industries were located there before the district
was established or not.

The New York law does not go so far. It does not seek to

affect anything but the future. It accepts the principle that,

c13

where a district has already gone and industries are well estab-
lished, it is futile to attempt to save it for residential purposes.

It has seemed to the writer that we would have a far
better chance of sustaining such enactments in our courts—
certainly in our Eastern courts, which are more conservative
than those further west—if we limit the enactment to the
future and do not seek to attempt to interfere with vested
rights and interests already well established in the enjoyment
and use of property for industrial and business purposes.

The Property Owner’s Right to be Heard

A third consideration of great importance is, how far the
residents and property owners of the district affected by the
restriction shall determine whether such restriction shall
apply. Here there are two elements of danger.

If the law permits the decision to rest solely with a ma-
jority of the property owners affected, there is likelihood of
its being set aside by the courts on the ground that one group
of property owners cannot deprive another group of property
owners of the right to use their property in such way as they
may wish.

On the other hand, we must be on our guard not to place
the determination of this question solely in the local legislative
body or permit it to act without giving the property owners
whose interests are affected an opportunity to express their
views and have some voice in the determination of the ques-
tion at issue.

It is apparent, therefore, that both of these elements must
be considered. The restriction to be valid must either orig-
inate with or have the affirmative approval of a substantial
majority of the parties in interest whose property is affected.
It must also have the approval of the government, that is, of
the local legislative body.

Geographical Boundaries to be Small

Another important consideration from the practical point
of view, if not so essential from the side of the legality of our
plan, is that the plan shall be a workable one and that the
geographical boundaries of the district affected shall be such14

as to give a scheme that will not unduly stop the progress of
a city nor interfere with the development of business where
business development is necessary and desirable.

It is because of the recognition of these considerations
that it has been found necessary, as I understand the experi-
ence of Germany also indicates, to make the unit of the district
extremely small. As has been already pointed out, in Cali-
fornia the unit has sometimes been a single lot, and this is the
case in some of the German cities.

For American practice the best unit seems to the writer
to be one side of a city block. Anything larger than this is
bound to cause trouble. It will not do to make the entire city
block the unit of our residential district, because it is well
recognized that we have in many cities conditions where one
side of a block located on some broad avenue is best adapted
for business purposes; in fact the only development that could
be appropriately and profitably made at a given time on such

ry

des of
the block may be located on distinctively residence streets

a location 1S of that mature, whereas the other three s
and the most appropriate use for them is a residential one.

With the unit thus limited to one side of a block, it is pos-
sible to give to each part of a city the special treatment that it
needs,—business in one case, residences in another.

Another important consideration from the point of view of
workability is that the plan shall be flexible so that the indus-
trial progress of the city may not be checked. It ought to be
possible, therefore, to have the restrictions that are imposed
removed or removable by as simple a process as the one by
which they are imposed, and even in a residence district where
the restrictions are in full force and effect it should be pos-
sible, especially in those cases where all industries are ex-
cluded, to permit certain industries with the consent of a
substantial majority (two-thirds or more) of the owners
affected and where the establishment of the industry is also
approved by the local legislative body.

Attitude of the Courts

Thus far the plan to establish residential districts has been
tested in but few cases. The Los Angeles ordinance—theT5
most drastic of all, and the pioneer as it happens—has been
tested in three important cases, all of which went to the
highest court in the state of California, the Supreme Court of
that state. In all these cases the law was strongly sustained.
The cases are important ones. They are known as

 

ex parte Quong Wo (161 Cal. 220; 118 Pac. Rep. 714).
ex parte Montgomery (163 Cal. 457; 125 Pac. Rep. 1070).
ex parte Hadacheck (132 Pac. Rep. 589).

In all of these cases the court took so broad a view of the
police power and laid down principles of such far-reaching
moment to all American cities that one is tempted to quote
at length from these decisions, but limitation of time does not
permit. Those who are interested in this subject will find in
the references cited a most interesting study.

In the first case, that of Quong Wo, the issue involved was
the right of a Chinese laundry to be maintained in the resi-
dential district. The laundry had been there for many years
before the district was established, but the court held that the
industry could no longer be maintained.

The Montgomery case involved the right of a lumber yard
to be maintained in a residential district. Here again the ordi-
nance was sustained and the lumber yard discontinued.

In the third case, the Hadacheck case, the industry involved
was that of a brickyards Here the petitioner was able to show
that the land contained»wvaligble deposits of clay suitable to
the manufacture of bricks and much more valuable for brick-
making than for any other purpose, that the owner had
through the entire period of his ownership used the land for
this purpose and had erected on it the kilns, machinery, etc.,
necessary for such manufacture, and that the brickyard had
been established at that location for a number of years prior
to the establishment of the residential district.

Notwithstanding this strong position of the industry
affected, the court held that it could not be maintained longer
in the residential district and that the ordinance was valid. In
its decision the court said that the police power was not only
for the suppression of nuisances, but that “it extends to and
includes the regulation of the conduct of all business and thea ——

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   

16

use of property to the end that public health or morals may
not be impaired or endangered.”

These striking and important decisions, sustaining and
broadening our conceptions of the police power, have been a
source of great comfort and encouragement to the writer of
this paper, who, however, has had his buoyant optimism some-
what diminished upon being informed by some of his legal
friends in the East that it is not safe to follow the decisions of
the California courts, as they are not esteemed highly by the
legal fraternity. We trust that this may prove to be a sectional
and narrow view of fundamental principles of human liberty.

The Canadian enactments, I am informed, have also been
tested before the courts as to the validity of the by-laws, which
have in each case been sustained, though no case has been of
sufficient importance as yet to warrant its being carried to the
higher courts. In the United States no case has gone to the
United States Supreme Court.

So much for the decisions sustaining laws of this kind.
Two adverse decisions have also been had. The one in the
case of the Grand Rapids ordinance already referred to and
tested only by a local court, and a more recent decision with
reference to an ordinance of this kind enacted by the city of
Chicago without specific grant of power by the legislature,
where an effort was made to prevent the establishment of
retail stores in a residential district under the general nuisance
power (Ill. Supreme Court, People y. City of Chicago, 103
Northeastern Reporter, 609). <* ©

To Sum Up

I think 1t must be evident to the unprejudiced observer,
from a consideration of the above facts, that a new use for
the police power has been discovered and that it is possible to
protect residential districts from the invasion of objectionable
industries and to preserve to the inhabitants of those districts
the enjoyment of their homes and property under rational con-
ditions of human existence.

In seeking legislation of this kind, however, there are cer-
tain important considerations which should be followed if we
wish to succeed.17

First, we must have a broad enabling grant of power from
the legislature authorizing the individual city or a group of
cities to establish residential districts.

Second, we may prohibit outright in such residential dis-
tricts all uses of property except for strictly residential pur-
poses, or we may enumerate certain industries that we desire
to have excluded from such districts.

Third, if we desire to exclude large multiple-dwellings such
as tenement houses, apartment houses and hotels from private-
dwelling districts, we must so draw our enactment as to
exclude everything other than private dwellings or two-family
dwellings, or we must exclude such multiple-dwellings by
specific enumeration.

Fourth, wherever we make any specific enumeration of
industries that may not be permitted great care must be taken
to enumerate only those which can be shown to be injurious
to health, safety, morals or the general welfare.

Fifth, it is better not to make our laws retroactive, but to
concern ourselves only with the future development of the
neighborhood.

Sixth, we must not place the final determination with re-
gard to the establishment of districts solely in the hands of
the property owners affected, nor on the other hand must we
leave it solely to the local legislative body. Both elements
must have a right to be heard in the determination.

Seventh, the geographical boundaries of the district must
be small so as not to interfere unduly with the commercial
development of the city.

Eighth, the plan of operation must be flexible and the re-
strictions imposed removable by as simple a process as the
one by which they were imposed.

If these considerations are followed it is believed that laws
of this kind can be made even judge-proot.NATIONAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION
PUBLICATIONS

THE AWAKENING OF A st ATE—INDI ANA
By Apion FetLtows Bacon. ‘Three cents by the hundred
WHAT BAD HOUSING MEANS TO THE COMMUNITY—4t# EnrTIon
By Apion FeLLows Bacon. Three cents by the hundred.
TEACHING THE TENANT (Out of print.)
By JoHANNA von WacNER. Four cents in quantities of one hundred or
more.
ONE MILLION PEOPLE IN SMALL HOUSES—2p Enirion
By Heven L. ParrisH. Four cents in quantities of one hundred or more.
HOUSING AND HEALTH—2p Epnitrion
By LAWRENCE VEILLER. Four cents by the hundred.
EE SURVEY, AND LEB SMALL BR, Cll y
By Grorc—E THomAs PALMER. ‘Three cents in quantities of one hundred
or more.
Tee TOME AS A-BACTOR IN PUBLIC ABA TH. (Out of prim)
By JoHN JuupFR. Three cents by the hundred.
SUN-LIGHTED TENEMENTS—tThirty-five Years’ Experience as an Owner
By Aurrep T. Wuitr. Ten cents each; nine cents by the hundred.
THE WORK OF A HOUSING COMMITTEE. (Out of print.)
By JoHn IHLDER. Two cents apiece for twenty-five or more; one cent by
the hundred.
HOW SOCIAL WORKERS CAN AID HOUSING REFORM. (Out of Print.)
By Mary E. Ricumonp. Three cents by the hundred.
WHAT KIND OF HOMES ?—How a Chamber of Commerce is Helping to
Solve the Housing Problem. (Out of Print.)
By Howarp Srronc. ‘Three cents by the hundred.
A HOUSING PROGRAMME
By LAWRENCE VEILLER. ‘Three cents by the hundred.
MODEL TOWNS IN AMERICA
By Grosvenor ATTrERBURY. Ten cents each; nine cents by the hundred.
ROOM OVERCROWDING AND THE LODGER EVIL
By LAWRENCE VEILLER. Three cents by the hundred.
THE MENACE OF GREAT CITIES
By THE RicHT HonoraBLE JAMES Bryce. Four cents by the hundred.
THE EFFECT OF A HOUSING LAW
By Atrrep T. WuitE. Two cents by the hundred.
RURAL AND SUBURBAN HOUSING
By Eimer S. Forpes. Three cents by the hundred.
BUILDING REGULATION BY DISTRICTS—The Lesson of Berlin.
By Frank Backus WiiiiAMs. Four cents by the hundred.
WHAT BAD HOUSING IS
By Miniprep CHApDSEY. Four cents by the hundred.
PrOLeCLiuNG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICES
By LAWRENCE VEILLER.

Single copies of the above ponniee. may be obtained from the National
Housing Association, 105 East 22d Street, New York City, for five cents
except Sun-Lighted Tenements and Model Towns in America, ten cents.

Other Pamphlets in preparation.

HOUSING PROBLEMS IN AMERICA
Proceedings of the First National Conference on Housing
Cloth bound. $2.00 postpaid. (Out of print.)
Proceedings of the Second Netonal | Conference on Housing in America
Cloth bound. $2.00 postpaid.

Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Housing

Cloth bound. $2.00 postpaid.

’

in America.

in America.