AgdaPkt 2002-11-04 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

10.¢-15 and a frame store building for the storage, display and sale of hardware. Among other arguments, plaintiff contended the ordinance was unreasonable and arbitrary as only prohibiting certain types of uses while allowing other uses of a more obnoxious character. There the court stated, "As illustrating his contention, he has pointed to the fact that the ordinance prohibits blacksmith and cooper from exercising their trades within the residence district, but permits the carpenter, the cabinet maker, the painter, and the printer; it prohibits hotels, but not lodging houses; pools rooms, but not bowling alleys; lumber yards, but not livery stables, and vinegar works, but not a cider press .... Appellant makes no claim that the various classes of business which the ordinance has prohibited from being established, maintained, and carried on within said district are of such a character that their establishment and operation in a residential district would not be objectionable and obnoxious to the inhabitants thereof, and therefore may be lawfully excluded from such a district by the municipal authorities in the proper exercise of the police power with which they are invested, but he contends that, by failing to exclude, and thereby impiiedly consenting to their existence and operation in such residence district, other occupations equally, if not more, obnoxious than those excluded, the ordinance containing such enactments and producing such results is both unreasonable and discriminatory, and therefore void." (At pp.668-669.) In considering Ordinance No.211 of Redwood City ..., we might say that, while we may not be able to discern the reason which induced the board of trustees of said city to pass this kind of ordinance, rather than one which excluded generally all business from the residence district, we cannot say that no good reason existed for the passage of the ordinance in its present form .... The objection to a lumber yard in a residence district is most obvious. Its presence in such a neighborhood has been declared by this court to "be a menace to the property" therein. (Citation omitted.) The same, however, may be said regarding a livery stable... A satisfactory reason, we think, might be given for the action of the trustees in omitting from the prohibited occupations most, if not all, of those mentioned by appellant, and the omission of which appellant claims renders the ordinance illegal. But, even if this could not be done, so long as it is not made clear, and we do not think it has, that good reason does not exist for the discrimination, it is the duty of the court to uphold the regulatory provisions of this ordinance. We are satisfied from the showing made that the ordinance is not discriminatory or unreasonable, but that it is a valid PRIVILEGED & CONFIDENTIAL Council. Innovations 5