Viewing page 48 of 93

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

have held them unconstitutional as an improper exercise of the police power.112 The theory is that instead of using the police power and thereby restricting the use of property, without payment, the governmental body should have condemned or purchased the property, and paid for it. While the trend may be in favor of upholding properly authorized and carefully drafted obstruction zoning laws,113 as long as there is any doubt as to the constitutionality of obstruction zoning laws as a proper exercise of the police power it is vital that they be drawn with the closest attention to the legal problems involved. Inasmuch as noise abatement land use zoning laws present further problems, as will be seen below, the same is even more important in drafting them.
    Turning to the latter, there is no known court case directly involving their validity,114 and there are at least two unusual legal aspects of such laws which might cause special problems.
    First. Residential zoning laws have commonly been based on the theory that the highest and best use is for the best class of residential property, and the most objectionable use is that which most severely impairs the welfare of the neighborhood. Such laws generally do not prevent anyone who wishes to do so from living next to the objectionable user, but they do prevent the latter from locating in a more highly zoned residential zone. In contrast, noise abatement, land use, zoning would bar even those who wished to do so from
44