Courts Move toward Redefinition of General Welfare

Abstract

In 1926, a legal challenge to the zoning ordinance of the city of Euclid, Ohio, was dismissed, although the U.S. Supreme Court added that its decision was not meant to “exclude the possibility of cases where the general public interest would so far outweigh the interest of the municipality that the municipality would not be allowed to stand in the way.” Euclid v. Ambler Realty, 272 U.S. 365, 90. In 1926 it was enough that the challenged zoning ordinance served to enhance the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of the city of Euclid alone. Fifty-two years later, in 1978, an amendment to the Bothell, Washington, zoning ordinance was found to be unconstitutional because, in adopting it, the city had not adequately considered the impact the amendment would have, not on the city of Bothell, but on the general welfare of the region of which Bothell is a part. Save v. City of Bothell, 576 P. 2d 401 (1978).