Carrying out the city plan

by Flavel Shurtleff

THE ACQUISITION OF LAND FOR AN ESTHETIC PURPOSE

By an amendment to the charter of the city of St. Louis in 1901, the right was given the municipal assembly of St. Louis by ordinance to “prohibit the erection or establishment or maintenance of any business house or the carrying on of any business vocation” on property fronting on a boulevard which might thereafter be opened.[8] By an act of the legislature of Massachusetts in 1898, buildings “now being built or hereafter to be built, rebuilt or altered” on land abutting on a public square known as Copley Square, in Boston, were limited to the height of 90 feet.[9] By a bill presented in the national house of representatives in 1910, the commissioners of the District of Columbia were authorized to designate certain streets or avenues within the District as Class A highways, and on such highways to establish certain special restrictions which might include the prohibition of any kind of business, and might require that buildings should be of certain height, certain materials of construction, and of such architectural design “as shall secure the beautiful and harmonious appearance, as viewed from the public streets, of all structures to be erected or altered on land to which said restrictions shall apply.”[10]

In all this legislation provision was made for compensation to owners for the right in land thus taken, and herein the legislation partakes of the character of ordinary eminent domain statutes. But the interference with private property which this legislation authorized is at least an unusual application of the power of eminent domain, if not an extension of it for a new purpose.

The condemnation of private property for parks, playgrounds, and boulevards has been upheld as justified in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, but the decisions are for the most part very careful to point out that esthetic purposes were merely incidental, allowing the inference to be drawn that the taking would not be justified for purely esthetic reasons. Under the legislation cited, developments of private property may be to a considerable extent controlled, bill-boards may be abolished, structures may be limited in height, the design of private buildings may be modified, solely in the interest of the public’s sense of beauty.

The only precedent that has been cited to support the validity of the right in the public which is asserted in this legislation is the Massachusetts case of Attorney General vs. Williams, 174 Mass. 476, decided in 1899. This case arose under the Massachusetts statute of 1898 above cited. The defendants were owners of a building abutting on Copley Square, Boston, which had been built in violation of the statute prohibiting the construction of buildings above 90 feet in height on this square. The action was brought to restrain the maintenance of the building at the height above the statutory line. The court decided that the statute was constitutional and that the height of the building should be made to conform with the statutory provision. The language of the court has been generally interpreted to mean that rights in private land and buildings in the nature of an easement may be taken by eminent domain solely for the protection of the public’s esthetic sense.[11]

“It hardly would be contended that the same reasons which justify the taking of land for a public park do not also justify the expenditure of money to make the park attractive and educational to those whose tastes are being formed and whose love of beauty is being cultivated.... It is argued by the defendants that the legislature in passing this statute was seeking to preserve the architectural symmetry of Copley Square. If this is a fact and if the statute is merely for the benefit of individual property owners, the purpose does not justify the taking of a right in land against the will of the owner. But if the legislature, for the benefit of the public was seeking to promote the beauty and attractiveness of a public park in the capital of the Commonwealth and to prevent unreasonable encroachments upon the light and air which it had previously received, we cannot say that the law-making power might not determine that this was a matter of such public interest as to call for an expenditure of public money, and to justify the taking of private property. While such a determination should not be made without careful consideration, and while the growing tendency toward an enlargement of the field of public expenditure should be jealously watched and carefully held in check, a determination of this kind once made by the legislature cannot be lightly set aside.”

The court says merely that the taking of private property is justified to promote the beauty of a park and prevent encroachments on its light and air. It is very doubtful if any broader meaning should be given to its language, but, if it is, it is believed that there have been no decisions in other jurisdictions involving the same principle. If the decision is generally followed it will be no great extension of this principle to declare constitutional the legislation previously cited which has been enacted in Missouri and proposed in Washington. It may be as clearly for the benefit of the public to promote the beauty of a street or boulevard, as is attempted by the St. Louis and Washington legislation, as to promote that of a park, which was declared to be one of the aims of the Massachusetts legislation in Attorney General vs. Williams. Education may so increase esthetic sentiment as to compel a general extension of the power of municipalities to interfere with the rights of owners for purely esthetic reasons, just as education compelled a judicial sanction of the right to take private property for purposes of public recreation. The framing of an esthetic test which will adequately protect the sense of beauty and still withstand the assaults of property owners, will puzzle the most astute law makers. An impartial administration of the newly sanctioned power will also be difficult. Neither of these difficulties, however, will stand in the way if the public demands a universal recognition that esthetic purposes are sufficient to justify condemnation.