2 ms·

This is a normal take of the case, but not what the appellate court decision was about. SCOTUS ignored the real issue - the apartments - and focused on the ind

This is a normal take of the case, but not what the appellate court decision was about. SCOTUS ignored the real issue - the apartments - and focused on the industrial uses in order to ignore the apartment issue.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Actually, we are both wrong. SCOTUS did explicitly address the apartment buildings and gave what to many contemporary eyes would be an absurd judgement: "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."
- Schiendelman 5y ago
  Yes - they made up a way to avoid the explicitly racist appellate case entirely, by claiming housing was a nuisance without saying the real reason the city considered it a nuisance out loud.

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago

Actually, we are both wrong. SCOTUS did explicitly address the apartment buildings and gave what to many contemporary eyes would be an absurd judgement: "With particular reference to apartment houses, it is pointed out that the development of detached house sections is greatly retarded by the coming of apartment houses, which has sometimes resulted in destroying the entire section for private house purposes; that in such sections very often the apartment house is a mere parasite, constructed in order to take advantage of the open spaces and attractive surroundings created by the residential character of the district. Moreover, the coming of one apartment house is followed by others, interfering by their height and bulk with the free circulation of air and monopolizing the rays of the sun which otherwise would fall upon the smaller homes, and bringing, as their necessary accompaniments, the disturbing noises incident to increased traffic and business, and the occupation, by means of moving and parked automobiles, of larger portions of the streets, thus detracting from their safety and depriving children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities-until, finally, the residential character of the neighborhood and its desirability as a place of detached residences are utterly destroyed. Under these circumstances, apartment houses, which in a different environment would be not only entirely unobjectionable but highly desirable, come very near to being nuisances."

Schiendelman 5y ago
Yes - they made up a way to avoid the explicitly racist appellate case entirely, by claiming housing was a nuisance without saying the real reason the city considered it a nuisance out loud.