Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.
Page 2 · column 1 of 3 · from the scan, no model involved
quiet place’
“A QUIET PLACE where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land use project addressed to family needs...The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion, and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people.”
That passage is from the majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court in the case of the Village of Belle Terre (N.Y.) vs Bruce Boraas as handed down April 1, 1974. It was written by Justice William O. Douglas, and sums up an interesting and what could be far-reaching interpretation of a community government’s zoning powers. While the case involved other complications of “life style” and legal points, not even the dissenting opinions written by Justices Brennan and Marshall argued the basic right of local governments to exercise zoning discretion of this sort.
It certainly seems elementary enough. But it is also something which sorely needed to be said in the highest tribunals, in the face of developer assertions which practically amount to a definition of anarchy. How many times have we heard it said around here?—about how simple ownership of a piece of property by one person overrides the rights of everyone else living in the community? It’s not usually put that bluntly, of course, but that’s what it amounts to. How refreshing now to hear the Supreme Court say that people in a community have the right, if they want to, to zone for peace and quiet—for “a sanctuary for people”!
94.4%