'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas'
[so use your own as not to injure another's property]
Manteca Municipal Codes are minimum standards of construction, land uses, and civil individual behaviors. Everyone is free to observe these laws even more strictly than just the bare minimum. Live your life giving offense to no one, and expect the same from your neighbors.
My views reflect my deep belief that property means nothing. A person enters life with nothing and exits the same way, taking only experience (which most often produces knowledge) and relationships - but not property. In the USA, some people acquire and control lots of property (wealth), others none, while most people are the stewards of enough property to sustain their temporary lives... then it is left behind.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
An interview by the Manteca Bulletin:
Behling vows to focus on ‘inner workings’ of city government
by Dennis Wyatt
July 19, 2010
http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/16003/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Zoning ordinances are constitutionally upheld as part of California state government's "police powers" in Miller v. Board of Public Works:
Supreme Court of California
195 Cal. 477; 234 P. 381; 1925 Cal. LEXIS 386; 38 A.L.R. 1479
GEORGE LEE MILLER et al., Appellants, v. BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES et al., Respondents
February 27, 1925
[Regarding] those [regulations] which prescribe the use to which buildings within certain designated districts may be put.
It is conceded, as indeed it must be, by the opponents of the ordinance in controversy here that it is within the police power, by zoning, to banish nuisances and "near-nuisances" from certain districts.
...the court... has held that certain business establishments, harmless in themselves, may become "near-nuisances" because of the character of the neighborhood in which they are operating. ... [A]ny zoning regulation is a valid exercise of the police power which is necessary to subserve the ends for which the police power exists, namely, the promotion of the public health, safety, morals, and general welfare. It will thus be seen that the police power as evidenced in zoning ordinances has a much wider scope than the mere suppression of the offensive uses of property, and that it acts not only negatively but constructively and affirmatively for the promotion of the public welfare.
...
Much is said about the constitutional guaranties attaching to the ownership of property in the individual. In this behalf it will be noted that:
(11) "It is thoroughly established in this country that the rights preserved to the individual by these constitutional provisions are held in subordination to the rights of society. Although one owns property, he may not do with it as he pleases any more than he may act in accordance with his personal desires. As the interest of society justifies restraints upon individual conduct, so, also, does it justify restraints upon the use to which property may be devoted. It was not intended by these constitutional provisions to so far protect the individual in the use of his property as to enable him to use it to the detriment of society. By thus protecting individual rights, society did not part with the power to protect itself or to promote its general well-being. Where the interest of the individual conflicts with the interest of society, such individual interest is subordinated to the general welfare.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The next year (1926), the decision regarding Miller v. Board of Public Works was cited in Euclid v. Ambler:
U.S. Supreme Court
VILLAGE OF EUCLID, OHIO v. AMBLER REALTY CO., 272 U.S. 365 (1926)
Reargued Oct. 12, 1926.
Decided Nov. 22, 1926.
Building zone laws are of modern origin. They began in this country about 25 years ago. Until recent years, urban life was comparatively simple; but, with the great increase and concentration of population, problems have developed, and constantly are developing, which require, and will continue to require, additional restrictions in respect of the use and occupation of private lands in [272 U.S. 365, 387] urban communities. Regulations, the wisdom, necessity, and validity of which, as applied to existing conditions, are so apparent that they are now uniformly sustained, a century ago, or even half a century ago, probably would have been rejected as arbitrary and oppressive. Such regulations are sustained, under the complex conditions of our day, for reasons analogous to those which justify traffic regulations, which, before the advent of automobiles and rapid transit street railways, would have been condemned as fatally arbitrary and unreasonable. And in this there is no inconsistency, for, while the meaning of constitutional guaranties never varies, the scope of their application must expand or contract to meet the new and different conditions which are constantly coming within the field of their operation. In a changing world it is impossible that it should be otherwise. But although a degree of elasticity is thus imparted, not to the meaning, but to the application of constitutional principles, statutes and ordinances, which, after giving due weight to the new conditions, are found clearly not to conform to the Constitution, of course, must fall.
The ordinance now under review, and all similar laws and regulations, must find their justification in some aspect of the police power, asserted for the public welfare. The line which in this field separates the legitimate from the illegitimate assumption of power is not capable of precise delimitation. It varies with circumstances and conditions. A regulatory zoning ordinance, which would be clearly valid as applied to the great cities, might be clearly invalid as applied to rural communities. In solving doubts, the maxim 'sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas,' [so use your own as not to injure another's property] which lies at the foundation of so much of the common law of nuisances, ordinarily will furnish a fairly helpful clew. And the law of nuisances, likewise, may be consulted, not for the purpose of controlling, but for the helpful aid of its analogies in the process of ascertaining [272 U.S. 365, 388] the scope of, the power. Thus the question whether the power exists to forbid the erection of a building of a particular kind or for a particular use, like the question whether a particular thing is a nuisance, is to be determined, not by an abstract consideration of the building or of the thing considered apart, but by considering it in connection with the circumstances and the locality. Sturgis v. Bridgeman, L. R. 11 Ch. 852, 865. A nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard. If the validity of the legislative classification for zoning purposes be fairly debatable, the legislative judgment must be allowed to control. Radice v. New York, 264 U.S. 292, 294 , 44 S. Ct. 325.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Camara v. Municipal Court is a San Francisco case that rose to the Supreme Court regarding code enforcement's "police power" to inspect private property to ensure compliance with local codes:
Supreme Court of United States.
387 U.S. 523 (1967)
CAMARA v. MUNICIPAL COURT OF THE CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO.
Argued February 15, 1967.
Decided June 5, 1967.
The warrant procedure is designed to guarantee that a decision to search private property is justified by a reasonable governmental interest. But reasonableness is still the ultimate standard. If a valid public interest justifies the intrusion contemplated, then there is probable cause to issue a suitably restricted search warrant. Cf. Oklahoma Press Pub. Co. v. Walling, 327 U. S. 186. Such an approach neither endangers time-honored doctrines applicable to criminal investigations nor makes a nullity of the probable cause requirement in this area. It merely gives full recognition to the competing public and private interests here at stake and, in so doing, best fulfills the historic purpose behind the constitutional right to be free from unreasonable government invasions of privacy. See Eaton v. Price, 364 U. S., at 273-274 (opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN).
Since our holding emphasizes the controlling standard of reasonableness, nothing we say today is intended to foreclose prompt inspections, even without a warrant, that the law has traditionally upheld in emergency situations. See North American Cold Storage Co. v. City of Chicago, 211 U. S. 306 (seizure of unwholesome food); Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 (compulsory smallpox vaccination); Compagnie Francaise v. Board of Health, 186 U. S. 380 (health quarantine); Kroplin v. Truax, 119 Ohio St. 610, 165 N. E. 498 (summary destruction of tubercular cattle). On the other hand, in the case of most routine area inspections, there is no compelling urgency to inspect at a particular time or on a particular day. Moreover, most citizens allow inspections of their property without a warrant. Thus, as a practical matter and in light of the Fourth Amendment's requirement that a warrant specify the property to be searched, it seems likely that warrants should normally be sought only after entry is refused unless there has been a citizen complaint or there is other satisfactory reason for securing immediate entry. Similarly, the requirement of a warrant procedure does not suggest any change in what seems to be the prevailing local policy, in most situations, of authorizing entry, but not entry by force, to inspect.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
When everyone does no crime and follows MINIMUM standards of behavior, everyone enjoys the benefits of public peace, health, safety, morals and general welfare. Surely, these are things that Manteca residents want. What to do when a selfish neighbor refuses to conform? Call Code Enforcement.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment