On the Choice of Remedies

Abstract

At a time when misuse of the power to zone seems to be increasing—some say rampant—when such misuse is frequently ignored even sanctioned by the courts, e.g.; Belle Terre v. Boraas, Steelhill v. Sanbornton, U.S. v. Black Jack (lower federal court), it is heartening to find a powerful court unite behind an articulate and powerfully worded opinion which strikes down an exercise of the police power (zoning) which legislates local biases and unreasonably excludes low income housing. There is an appropriateness too in that it is Justice Hall, some 12 years after his classic dissent in the Vickers case, who rationalizes a long line of often misunderstood New Jersey cases and the case law of other jurisdictions and concludes: “that every … municipality must, by its land use regulations, … make realistically possible an appropriate variety and choice of housing.” A strong concurring opinion further notes; “the use of the zoning power by municipalities to maintain themselves as enclaves of affluence or of social homogeneity … [is] improper and to be strongly condemned.”