Prohibitive zoning, redlining, and restrictive codes are counterproductive to the Declaration of Independence. “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed, that whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its Foundation on such Principles, and organizing its Powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.” Simply put, this passage guaranteed that governments, since they are for the people and by the people, should never be an instrument of extermination. If it becomes that, then the people who created it has the birthright to change it and establish a new one in its place. The foundation for such a government should be the protection and contentment of its creators. The problem lay in the fact that the definition of the “men and people” referenced did not include those who were considered what Carl A. Zimring called “urban grime” or “matter our place.”[1] Thomas Jefferson believed when men interacted with rural soil, that is, soil that was part of the natural order such as farmland, it became an action that strengthen. He believed those “who labour in the earth are the chosen people of God.”[2] Urban grime, on the other hand, led to “vice and wretchedness…[which] led to degradation and inequality.”[3] The below cases below show the history of zoning cases decided by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
Supreme Court Zoning Cases[4],[5]
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 1926
The court upheld the constitutionality of zoning as a valid exercise of the police power.
Berman v. Parker, 1954
The court held that spiritual and aesthetic values, as well as physical and financial values, come within the concept of the public welfare and may be factors in zoning decisions.
Armstrong v. United States, 1960
See the Abandoned and Captured Property Act.
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 1974
The court declared the protection of family ideals to be a proper zoning objective.
Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 1977??
The court ruled local governments may exclude low-income housing.
Westborough Mall, Inc. v. City of Cape Girardeau, 1983
The court ruled competition that might damage a municipality project falls under local zoning mandates.
Reproductive Health Servs. v. Webster, 1987
This case illustrated that “zoning is a municipality’s principal meant to control protesters…” and “shows the willingness of states to regulate indirectly what they cannot regulate directly.”[6]
One of the most powerful incentives used to remove West Rock residents involved eminent domain.[1] This legal act of seizing property by a governmental entity is, at best, controversial in that the actual words “eminent domain” do not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The origin of the phrase is found in the last lines of the Fifth Amendment: “…or shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” These words are referred to as the Takings Clause. It is clearly understood that private property can be taken away by the government with the understanding that the owner must be justly compensated. In addition, to fully understand the concept of eminent domain, the Fourteen Amendment must be understood. Section 1 of the amendment made “all persons born or naturalized in the United States” citizens and, therefore, made them subject to the law. It also guaranteed no “State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” In 1855, the Court clarified the “words, “due process of law,” were undoubtedly intended to convey the same meaning as the words, “by the law of the land,” in [the] Magna Carta.”[2] In essence, the laws of the government had great latitude, especially in the lives of people of color.
In 1897, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), for the first time, tied the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment into the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Company v. City of Chicago, found a “judgment of a state court, even if authorized by statute, whereby private property is taken for public use, without compensation made or secured to the owner, is, upon principle and authority, wanting in the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” In other words, SCOTUS affirmed that private property owners MUST be compensated if forced to move.
The Arkansas State Legislation directed “[a]n authority shall have the right to acquire by the exercise of the power of eminent domain any real property which it may deem necessary for its purposes under this Act after the adoption by it of a resolution declaring that the acquisition of the real property described therein is necessary for such purposes.”[3] These words gave the Little Rock Housing Authority the right to remove the residents of West Rock. It was legal and absolute as sanctioned by the federal, state, county, and city governments.
The residents of West Rock were rendered powerless at this point.
[1] Ibid., 1087.
[2] Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land and Improvement Co., 59 U.S. 272 (1855), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/59/272/. Accessed October 15, 2019.
[3] Acts of Arkansas 1935-1937, “Act 298, Housing Authorities Act.” Microfiche reel MG01772AHC, 1074-1099, Arkansas State Archives, Little Rock, Arkansas, 1087.