~ / UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA LIBRARY 04215794Protecting Residential Districts BY LAWRENCE VEILLER Nationa, Houstnc ASSsocIATION PUBLICATIONS No. 26 Prick Fiv—E CENTS SEPTEMBER, 1914 105 East 22p Street, NEw , York Crry iv X004215794PAPER READ AT SIxTH NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON City PLANNING May, 1914NIG) 2 Protecting Residential Districts BY LAWRENCE VEILLER Secretary, National Housing Association, New York City. pursuit of happiness include those important consid- erations which our English cousins in their recent town-planning legislation refer to as the “amenities’’? This is a question which many people are beginning to ask themselves in America. It is only in very recent years that we have been conscious of the necessity of doing something to protect our citizens in the enjoyment of the right to lead a quiet, contented, rational existence and bring up their families free from the noise, dis- comfort and nerve-racking atmosphere which generally sur- rounds our industries. Heretofore we have gone along in a truly American fashion of mixing up in a haphazard way business and residential dis- tricts without regard to the rights of others or the welfare of DD OES the constitutional right to life, liberty and the the community. But during the last few years in a few of our larger cities we have awakened to the folly of this disorderly and thought- less method of living and are beginning to ask ourselves whether these discomforts of living are really necessary after all. > I must frankly confess that we haye cast somewhat longing eyes at the shores of Germany and wondered whether there was something so essentially different in the atmosphere of Germany and America that it would be impossible for us to eneraft upon American civilization the well-established prin- ciple of zoning that has been in operation for a generation or more in that country. “A man’s a man for a’ that,” and it has seemed to some of us that there was not such an essential difference between the human characteristics of the German and the American as to make it a frantic imagining or Utopian dream for even us in America to expect that the time might come when we2 might insure to our citizens the right to live in a peaceful and untrammeled atmosphere. When one comes to consider it, after all it is not the most rational method to employ, the method that we have heretofore followed and considered as the only method, namely, of mixing up in a heterogeneous mass the places where our people live with all sorts of objec- tionable industries. I think if we frankly search the records we shall find that this is not really, after all, a new impulse, but only a wider realization of a very desirable consummation to be sought after. From the earliest days even in America those of us who have not been especially enamored of noise and of a hurly- burly life, have sought so far as mere man could, acting alone and without the powerful support of government, to control his own neighborhood and protect the little home into which he had put his earnings (or the large, luxurious mansion into which he had put somebody else’s earnings, as the case may have been) and where he expected to bring up a family and live for the rest of his life. And so we find for many years in America an effort through private covenant, or what is popularly known as “property restrictions,” to secure the result desired. Unfortunately this method, which has been followed to a greater or less degree throughout all parts of the country, has not proved entirely satisfactory; being a private arrangement between private individuals and being only a mutual agree- ment or contract, itshas<proved to be easily dissolvable. Fur- thermore, in many ‘ak Gir states the courts have held that property restrictions imposed some years back by the then owners of property are no longer binding and of effect when the neighborhood conditions have changed and when the suc- ceeding property owners have desired to dissolve the terms of such agreement. So it is not strange, with the increasing difficulties of city life, that men have turned to other methods and endeavored to see whether they could not find a means by which the right of a man to the enjoyment of his property in peace and quiet might be saved to him and his family and not be easily in- vaded. sy iy3 Private covenant having proved ineffective, the use of the police power of the state has finally been sought. How far the police power will stretch in America is still a question to be decided. One thing is certain, it will not extend beyond what the engineers call “the limits of elasticity.” But just how far will it stretch? What can we do in America, without constitutional limitations, to conserve to property owners and to dwellers in our cities the right to live in a peaceful, quiet, secluded neighborhood free from the in- vasions of business and of industry and with the amenities of civilization? That the police power cannot be stretched to cover merely zsthetic considerations is clear from the decisions of our COMEES: low fan, tien, may 1b extend Our most eminent jurists agree in the opinion that it may extend to almost infinite reach so long as it clearly includes matters which affect public health, safety, morals or the gen- eral welfare, provided always, of course, that the exercise of such power be a reasonable one. As yet no one has sought to define the meaning of that im- portant term “general welfare.” It is a most important one for those interested in progress. I take it to be the American equivalent of our English city planners’ “amenity.” What Has Been Done in the United State: Such efforts as have been made in the United States to extend the use of the police power in this direction have all been within the past few years, the earliest attempt having been in the state of California five years ago. Here in 1909 the first effort to establish residential districts and to exclude therefrom certain industries was made in the city of Los Angeles. In the year following a similar attempt was made in Michigan, in the city of Grand Rapids, and more recently, viz., in 1913, there seems to have been an epidemic of regulation of this kind, the states of New York, Wisconsin, Minnesota and [llinois having all passed legislation of this nature. So far as I can ascertain, all these various attempts were4 made in an unrelated way by each state, without knowledge of what the other was doing; in fact, in most cases I believe with- out knowledge of what California had done four years pre- vious. And we all furnished that delicious illustration of fancying ourselves pioneers blazing new trails and then dis- covering afterward that we were only following in the foot- steps of earlier adventurers. The limitations of this meeting permit me only to outline some of the distinctive features of these different schemes. California Leads the Way The Los Angeles ordinance differs in many respects from the districting plans of other cities in that it lays the greater emphasis upon the establishment of industrial districts, where- as the schemes embodied in the laws of other states concern themselves with residential districts. The difference, however, after all, is chiefly a question of emphasis. The entire city of Los Angeles, with the exception of two suburbs, is divided into industrial and residential districts. In addition to the industrial districts there are what are termed “residence exceptions”; in other words, small spots where certain unobjectionable industries are permitted. The industrial districts vary greatly in shape and size. The largest has an area of several square miles and measures five miles in length and two miles in width. The smallest district comprises a single lot. Asa whole the industrial districts are Srouped im One part of the city. Phe residence exceptions are small, with the exception of one which is about a half mile in area. None of them covers a greater area than two city blocks, and in many cases each does not occupy more than one or two lots. The line that is drawn between the industrial district and the residential district in the Los Angeles scheme is that all kinds of business and manufacturing are permitted without restriction in the industrial districts, while in the residential districts certain specified businesses of a distinctly objection- able nature are prohibited. Those industries which are not enumerated in the prohibition are permitted. In the residential districts all manufacturing but that of5 the lightest kind is forbidden, but less offensive business and manufacturing establishments which are excluded from the residential districts may be carried on in the “residence excep- tions,” which seem to be a sort of “twilight zone” between the two extremes. The Law Retroactive A distinctive feature of the Los Angeles scheme is that certain industries, even if already established in the residential district before the district is created, are to be excluded; that is, it becomes unlawful to maintain these industries even though they may have been in operation for many years before the district was created. Among those excluded are the following: Any works or factory using power other than animal power in its operation, or any stone crusher or rolling mill, machine shop, planing mill, carpet-beating establishment, hay barn, wood yard, lumber yard, public laundry, wash house, coal yard, briquette yard, riding academy, or any winery or place where wine or brandy is made or manufactured. So much for the California enactment. As it is the only one which has been tested in operation through any consid- erable period of time and is also one which has been tested in the highest state courts, it assumes especial importance for the rest of the country. t differs in a number of marked respects from the attempts that have been made in other cities, and before discussing the limitations of such statutes and the essential principles to be observed in formulating them if they are to be sustained by our courts, it may perhaps not be inappropriate to briefly state ; been done in the other states. an in 1910 the Common Council of Grand Rapids, 11°an < In Michi without any specific authority from the legislature, passed an ordinance establishing residence districts, and subsequently this ordinance was amended by creating additional residence districts. The validity of the ordinance was attacked in the courts, and the Superior Court of Grand Rapids held that the ordinance was unconstitutional and void, among other reasons on the ground that “such ordinance constitutes a taking away of the property of relator without due process of law, in viola-6 tion of the provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.” As the court did not advance any reasons for reaching this conclusion, and as the case was not carried to the highest court, and the whole issue was affected by the fact that the Common Council had received no specific grant of police power from the legislature to enact an ordinance of this kind, this decision is of no great value to us except as indicating some of the things not to do in grappling with this problem. The Wisconsin Act The legislature of Wisconsin in 1913 (Chapter 743) passed an act authorizing cities of 25,000 or more to set aside exclusive Kesidenmar districts. [he act thus alfects the cities or Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse, Madison, Oshkosh, Racine, Sheboygan and Superior. Part of the act reads as follows: vithe Common Council mi cittes of : . . 25,000 of more are authorized to set apart portions of such cities to be used exclusively for residential purposes, and to prohibit the erec- tion and maintenance of factories, docks or other similar con- cerns within such districts. Such cities may in like manner restrain the encroachment of business houses upon purely residence districts, require the consent of the majority of land owners and residents of such districts, once improved, before such business 1s permitted on such streets, and make as low a unit as one block. The power granted may be exercised upon the initiative of the Common Council or upon the petition of tem OF more tesidents in the district or block to be affected.” And the act goes on to say that “the enactment of ordinances excluding factories, docks or other similar concerns from residential districts shall be a final and conclusive finding that factories operated in such district are detrimental to the health, comfort and welfare of the residents of said city.” We understand that under this power the city of Mil- waukee either has recently or is about to establish a number of residential districts. Neither the act nor the ordinance has as yet been tested, so far as we are able to ascertain.7, Minnesota Follows Suit At about the same time that the state of Wisconsin was acting, the state of Minnesota was taking similar action. The legislature of that state in 1913 passed an act (Statutes 1913, Chapter 420) empowering cities with a population in excess of 50,000 to establish exclusive residential and industrial dis- tricts. This law therefore applies to the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth. Acting under authority of this law the City Council of Minneapolis on February 28, 1913, passed an ordinance establishing certain residential districts. So far as we can ascertain, the validity of this ordinance has not as yet been tested. The state of Illinois in the same year also passed an act empowering cities to establish residential districts and exclude therefrom certain other classes of buildings, but this was vetoed by the Governor upon an opinion from the attorney- general that such an act would be unconstitutional. As a resident of the effete East, I would not for a moment have you believe that these important efforts in the cause of progress have come only from the Far West or Middle West. New York State Acts At the same time that Wisconsin, Minnesota and Illinois were acting, the Empire State of New York was taking similar action. In the Housing Law for Second Class Cities (Chapter 774 of the Laws of 1913) will be found a similar plan for the establishment of residential districts. In that act a plan is provided for the establishment of “residence districts,’ and the erection of any building other than a private dwelling or two-family dwelling in such districts is prohibited. The resi- dence district may be made as small as one side of a city block. Acting under authority of this law the cities of Syracuse and Utica have passed ordinances establishing such residential districts. Here, too, so far as can be learned, no attempt has been made to test the constitutionality of this provision, though many “sea-lawyers” have rendered horseback opinions, or perhaps it would be more appropriate to say sea-leg opinions, that any such scheme is unconstitutional. The great city of New York has also taken similar action8 within the last two months, the legislature of 1914 having passed an enabling act authorizing the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of that city to divide the city into districts and to regulate the use of buildings in each district on a different basis. A commission is to be appointed by the local authorities of New York City to determine the boundaries of districts and to work out the details of this plan. Canada the Pioneer lt would be inappropriate in this. presence for me to attempt to discuss what has been done in the Dominion of Canada along similar lines, except to say that I am informed Canada took action in this direction nearly five years before the United States even thought of it. As early as 1904 the legislature of the Province of Ontario amended the Municipal Act by adding thereto a new section known as Section 541-A. This authorized the Councils of cities and towns by a two- thirds vote of the whole Council to pass and enforce such by-laws as they might deem expedient ... in the case of cities only “to prevent, regulate and control the location, erection and use of buildings as laundries, stores and manufactories” ; ana later on from year to year the scope of the act has beén enlarged so as to apply also to “stables for horses for delivery purposes, butcher shops, blacksmith shops, forges, dog kennels, hospitals, or infirmaries for horses, dogs or other animals.” It was also provided that the location, erection and con- struction or use of any building in contravention of any such by-law might be restrained by injunction proceedings at the instance of the municipality; and it was further provided that none of the above provisions should apply to any buildings then erected or used for any of the purposes mentioned so long as their present use continued. In 1912 this provision was extended by empowering cities having a population of not less than 100,000 to “‘prohibit, regu- late and control the location, on certain streets to be named in the by-laws, of apartment or tenement houses, and of garages to be used for hire or gain.” : Acting under authority of this law the city of Toronto in9 1913—and I imagine also even during the present year—has passed a number of by-laws of this nature. If we include also the general enactment in the building code of the city of Baltimore, state of Maryland, by which it is provided that no permit for the erection of any building may be given by the local authorities without the approval of the Building Inspector and the Mayor that its erection will not increase the fire hazard, depreciate the surrounding land values or have a disadvantageous effect upon the general welfare of the residents in the immediate vicinity, we have included in our summary of the enactments on this subject all those which the writer, using the most diligent effort, has been able to get track of. Essential Principles Involved What, it may be asked, are the important considerations to be borne in mind in seeking in America to utilize the police power to regulate the character of neighborhoods and to pro- tect citizens in the enjoyment of residential districts free from the invasion of objectionable industries or occupations, and how can we so formulate our enactments that they will not be ubject to adverse decision by our courts? It will be seen from a study of the different enactments that have been described that they differ in many respects and in some essential particulars. In the first place, should we limit the industries or uses which we exclude from a residential district to certain speci- fied ones that may be enumerated in the statute or shall we prohibit all industries in our residential district and forbid there any use other than for purposes of residence! In the California law we find that only those industries are excluded that are enumerated, and presumably only those are enumerated which the authors of the law believe can be shown clearly to be objectionable from the point of view of public health, safety, morals or w elfare. In the Minneapolis ordinance and in the Milwaukee ordinance the same principle is followed and specific industries are enumerated. It has become an axiom, however, in legislative experience, that specific enumerations are extremely dangerous, for theIO very simple reason that the enumerator is apt to forget many points which should be enumerated and may possibly include in the enumeration things which are subject to attack. The California law illustrates this admirably. In the Los Angeles ordinance it will be recalled that where the objectionable industries prohibited in the residential dis- tricts are enumerated we find among other things “any winery or place where wine or brandy is made or manufactured.” The question at once suggests itself, why exclude brandy and permit whiskey? It may be that the author of the law had his individual preferences, but we submit that this should not be a controll- ing consideration! Viewed from any point of view, the Ualifornia enumeration or any enumeration has its weak points. How are we to treat tinder such a plan the case where a man has invested his money in an attractive dwelling with the idea of permanently living there for the rest of his days; then suddenly he finds his property values injured, the whole character of the street endangered, because someone has chosen to construct a small retail store in one of the houses? One store of this kind leads to another, and within a short time the residences are driven out. The plan of enumeration would not cover such a case, un- less the very general description were used of any place where anything is sold, but that would be too sweeping, as many important business transactions are consummated in private residences. The writer questions also whether it would be possible in all cases to show that all of the industries enumerated in the Los Angeles enactment are in themselves dangerous to life, health or safety or injurious to the general welfare. In the New York Second Class Cities Law everything but private dwellings and two-family dwellings and private garages or stables at the rear of the lot is excluded. In this act no attempt is made to enumerate objectionable industries or objectionable uses of property in residential districts, but all uses other than for purposes of residence are by the act itself excluded.II The Problem of the Multiple-Dwelling An important feature of this scheme which should not be lost sight of is carried out in the New York law, namely, the exclusion from strictly private-residence districts of huge multiple-dwellings such as tenement houses and apartment houses and hotels. A similar objective was evidently at the base of the more recent Toronto enactments, as the ordinance of that city applies to the prohibition of tenement houses and apartment houses and public garages and stables. None of the statutes which have been cited, neither the ordinance of California nor the laws of Wisconsin or Min- nesota, will be of any value in the effort to keep apartment houses, tenements and hotels out of private-residence dis- tricts, as the laws of these states simply give to the local authorities in the cities affected the right to differentiate resi- dential and industrial districts. The multiple-dwelling, either apartment house, tenement house or hotel, is of course a resi- dential use of property, and such a building could not therefore be excluded: It is of very great importance in many of our rapidly developing cities to keep apartment houses and hotels out of the private-residence districts and to discourage so far as we legally can the erection of multiple-dwellings. Notwithstand- ing its manifest convenience and great advantage from many points of view, the multiple-dwelling is unquestionably a source of detriment to the development of any city and inter- feres greatly with proper social conditions and the develop- ment Of tiie Civic Spirit. A city cannot be a eity of home owners where the multiple-dwelling flourishes. Of course there are cities such as New York and some of the older Eastern cities where the multiple-dwelling is the chief type of house that we can expect to find at the present day in the future development of the city. Here, therefore, it ill be necessary to distinguish between the prohibition of multiple-dwellings and the prohibition of industries. In work- ing out regulations for New York City, for instance, the local authorities will undoubtedly have to deal with this somewhat puzzling question.12 Thus we see there is a wide variance in the practice of the West and the East. Which is the better course to follow? It depends very largely on how far we want to go. If we want to keep a residence district strictly for residence pur- poses, the method employed in the New York law is more likely to accomplish the result than the method employed in the Los Angeles, Milwaukee and Minneapolis ordinances. From the point of view of sustaining such an enactment in the courts there is much to be said in favor of the latter provided the industries enumerated can be clearly shown to be injurious to health, safety, morals or the general wellare. It is interesting and significant to note that the enabling acts in all three states, namely, Wisconsin, Minnesota and New York, are couched in very broad terms and empower the cities affected to exclude from residential districts practically all buildings other than those used for residences. Shall the Law be Retroactive? The next question which confronts us, and one which is of great moment, is, shall our statutes be retroactive? Shall we reach back into the past and disturb industries or uses of prop- erty which have been maintained for many years past? In other words, shall we, after a given date, no matter what the conditions, exclude from a newly created residential district all industries or objectionable uses to which property may be put? This has been the method employed in California. It is also the method employed in the Milwaukee and Minneapolis oO ae 1s SE 1, ao 5 : f . . ordinances, but it should be noted that these ordinances in excluding certain industries from residential districts are 4 1 limited solely to those industries which can be shown to be objectionable from the point of view of public health, morals or the general welfare. Having, however, once enumerated these industries, they may not be maintained in the residential districts, no matter whether the industries were located there before the district was established or not. The New York law does not go so far. It does not seek to affect anything but the future. It accepts the principle that, c13 where a district has already gone and industries are well estab- lished, it is futile to attempt to save it for residential purposes. It has seemed to the writer that we would have a far better chance of sustaining such enactments in our courts— certainly in our Eastern courts, which are more conservative than those further west—if we limit the enactment to the future and do not seek to attempt to interfere with vested rights and interests already well established in the enjoyment and use of property for industrial and business purposes. The Property Owner’s Right to be Heard A third consideration of great importance is, how far the residents and property owners of the district affected by the restriction shall determine whether such restriction shall apply. Here there are two elements of danger. If the law permits the decision to rest solely with a ma- jority of the property owners affected, there is likelihood of its being set aside by the courts on the ground that one group of property owners cannot deprive another group of property owners of the right to use their property in such way as they may wish. On the other hand, we must be on our guard not to place the determination of this question solely in the local legislative body or permit it to act without giving the property owners whose interests are affected an opportunity to express their views and have some voice in the determination of the ques- tion at issue. It is apparent, therefore, that both of these elements must be considered. The restriction to be valid must either orig- inate with or have the affirmative approval of a substantial majority of the parties in interest whose property is affected. It must also have the approval of the government, that is, of the local legislative body. Geographical Boundaries to be Small Another important consideration from the practical point of view, if not so essential from the side of the legality of our plan, is that the plan shall be a workable one and that the geographical boundaries of the district affected shall be such14 as to give a scheme that will not unduly stop the progress of a city nor interfere with the development of business where business development is necessary and desirable. It is because of the recognition of these considerations that it has been found necessary, as I understand the experi- ence of Germany also indicates, to make the unit of the district extremely small. As has been already pointed out, in Cali- fornia the unit has sometimes been a single lot, and this is the case in some of the German cities. For American practice the best unit seems to the writer to be one side of a city block. Anything larger than this is bound to cause trouble. It will not do to make the entire city block the unit of our residential district, because it is well recognized that we have in many cities conditions where one side of a block located on some broad avenue is best adapted for business purposes; in fact the only development that could be appropriately and profitably made at a given time on such ry des of the block may be located on distinctively residence streets a location 1S of that mature, whereas the other three s and the most appropriate use for them is a residential one. With the unit thus limited to one side of a block, it is pos- sible to give to each part of a city the special treatment that it needs,—business in one case, residences in another. Another important consideration from the point of view of workability is that the plan shall be flexible so that the indus- trial progress of the city may not be checked. It ought to be possible, therefore, to have the restrictions that are imposed removed or removable by as simple a process as the one by which they are imposed, and even in a residence district where the restrictions are in full force and effect it should be pos- sible, especially in those cases where all industries are ex- cluded, to permit certain industries with the consent of a substantial majority (two-thirds or more) of the owners affected and where the establishment of the industry is also approved by the local legislative body. Attitude of the Courts Thus far the plan to establish residential districts has been tested in but few cases. The Los Angeles ordinance—theT5 most drastic of all, and the pioneer as it happens—has been tested in three important cases, all of which went to the highest court in the state of California, the Supreme Court of that state. In all these cases the law was strongly sustained. The cases are important ones. They are known as ex parte Quong Wo (161 Cal. 220; 118 Pac. Rep. 714). ex parte Montgomery (163 Cal. 457; 125 Pac. Rep. 1070). ex parte Hadacheck (132 Pac. Rep. 589). In all of these cases the court took so broad a view of the police power and laid down principles of such far-reaching moment to all American cities that one is tempted to quote at length from these decisions, but limitation of time does not permit. Those who are interested in this subject will find in the references cited a most interesting study. In the first case, that of Quong Wo, the issue involved was the right of a Chinese laundry to be maintained in the resi- dential district. The laundry had been there for many years before the district was established, but the court held that the industry could no longer be maintained. The Montgomery case involved the right of a lumber yard to be maintained in a residential district. Here again the ordi- nance was sustained and the lumber yard discontinued. In the third case, the Hadacheck case, the industry involved was that of a brickyards Here the petitioner was able to show that the land contained»wvaligble deposits of clay suitable to the manufacture of bricks and much more valuable for brick- making than for any other purpose, that the owner had through the entire period of his ownership used the land for this purpose and had erected on it the kilns, machinery, etc., necessary for such manufacture, and that the brickyard had been established at that location for a number of years prior to the establishment of the residential district. Notwithstanding this strong position of the industry affected, the court held that it could not be maintained longer in the residential district and that the ordinance was valid. In its decision the court said that the police power was not only for the suppression of nuisances, but that “it extends to and includes the regulation of the conduct of all business and thea —— 16 use of property to the end that public health or morals may not be impaired or endangered.” These striking and important decisions, sustaining and broadening our conceptions of the police power, have been a source of great comfort and encouragement to the writer of this paper, who, however, has had his buoyant optimism some- what diminished upon being informed by some of his legal friends in the East that it is not safe to follow the decisions of the California courts, as they are not esteemed highly by the legal fraternity. We trust that this may prove to be a sectional and narrow view of fundamental principles of human liberty. The Canadian enactments, I am informed, have also been tested before the courts as to the validity of the by-laws, which have in each case been sustained, though no case has been of sufficient importance as yet to warrant its being carried to the higher courts. In the United States no case has gone to the United States Supreme Court. So much for the decisions sustaining laws of this kind. Two adverse decisions have also been had. The one in the case of the Grand Rapids ordinance already referred to and tested only by a local court, and a more recent decision with reference to an ordinance of this kind enacted by the city of Chicago without specific grant of power by the legislature, where an effort was made to prevent the establishment of retail stores in a residential district under the general nuisance power (Ill. Supreme Court, People y. City of Chicago, 103 Northeastern Reporter, 609). <* © To Sum Up I think 1t must be evident to the unprejudiced observer, from a consideration of the above facts, that a new use for the police power has been discovered and that it is possible to protect residential districts from the invasion of objectionable industries and to preserve to the inhabitants of those districts the enjoyment of their homes and property under rational con- ditions of human existence. In seeking legislation of this kind, however, there are cer- tain important considerations which should be followed if we wish to succeed.17 First, we must have a broad enabling grant of power from the legislature authorizing the individual city or a group of cities to establish residential districts. Second, we may prohibit outright in such residential dis- tricts all uses of property except for strictly residential pur- poses, or we may enumerate certain industries that we desire to have excluded from such districts. Third, if we desire to exclude large multiple-dwellings such as tenement houses, apartment houses and hotels from private- dwelling districts, we must so draw our enactment as to exclude everything other than private dwellings or two-family dwellings, or we must exclude such multiple-dwellings by specific enumeration. Fourth, wherever we make any specific enumeration of industries that may not be permitted great care must be taken to enumerate only those which can be shown to be injurious to health, safety, morals or the general welfare. Fifth, it is better not to make our laws retroactive, but to concern ourselves only with the future development of the neighborhood. Sixth, we must not place the final determination with re- gard to the establishment of districts solely in the hands of the property owners affected, nor on the other hand must we leave it solely to the local legislative body. Both elements must have a right to be heard in the determination. Seventh, the geographical boundaries of the district must be small so as not to interfere unduly with the commercial development of the city. Eighth, the plan of operation must be flexible and the re- strictions imposed removable by as simple a process as the one by which they were imposed. If these considerations are followed it is believed that laws of this kind can be made even judge-proot.NATIONAL HOUSING ASSOCIATION PUBLICATIONS THE AWAKENING OF A st ATE—INDI ANA By Apion FetLtows Bacon. ‘Three cents by the hundred WHAT BAD HOUSING MEANS TO THE COMMUNITY—4t# EnrTIon By Apion FeLLows Bacon. Three cents by the hundred. TEACHING THE TENANT (Out of print.) By JoHANNA von WacNER. Four cents in quantities of one hundred or more. ONE MILLION PEOPLE IN SMALL HOUSES—2p Enirion By Heven L. ParrisH. Four cents in quantities of one hundred or more. HOUSING AND HEALTH—2p Epnitrion By LAWRENCE VEILLER. Four cents by the hundred. EE SURVEY, AND LEB SMALL BR, Cll y By Grorc—E THomAs PALMER. ‘Three cents in quantities of one hundred or more. Tee TOME AS A-BACTOR IN PUBLIC ABA TH. (Out of prim) By JoHN JuupFR. Three cents by the hundred. SUN-LIGHTED TENEMENTS—tThirty-five Years’ Experience as an Owner By Aurrep T. Wuitr. Ten cents each; nine cents by the hundred. THE WORK OF A HOUSING COMMITTEE. (Out of print.) By JoHn IHLDER. Two cents apiece for twenty-five or more; one cent by the hundred. HOW SOCIAL WORKERS CAN AID HOUSING REFORM. (Out of Print.) By Mary E. Ricumonp. Three cents by the hundred. WHAT KIND OF HOMES ?—How a Chamber of Commerce is Helping to Solve the Housing Problem. (Out of Print.) By Howarp Srronc. ‘Three cents by the hundred. A HOUSING PROGRAMME By LAWRENCE VEILLER. ‘Three cents by the hundred. MODEL TOWNS IN AMERICA By Grosvenor ATTrERBURY. Ten cents each; nine cents by the hundred. ROOM OVERCROWDING AND THE LODGER EVIL By LAWRENCE VEILLER. Three cents by the hundred. THE MENACE OF GREAT CITIES By THE RicHT HonoraBLE JAMES Bryce. Four cents by the hundred. THE EFFECT OF A HOUSING LAW By Atrrep T. WuitE. Two cents by the hundred. RURAL AND SUBURBAN HOUSING By Eimer S. Forpes. Three cents by the hundred. BUILDING REGULATION BY DISTRICTS—The Lesson of Berlin. By Frank Backus WiiiiAMs. Four cents by the hundred. WHAT BAD HOUSING IS By Miniprep CHApDSEY. Four cents by the hundred. PrOLeCLiuNG RESIDENTIAL DISTRICES By LAWRENCE VEILLER. Single copies of the above ponniee. may be obtained from the National Housing Association, 105 East 22d Street, New York City, for five cents except Sun-Lighted Tenements and Model Towns in America, ten cents. Other Pamphlets in preparation. HOUSING PROBLEMS IN AMERICA Proceedings of the First National Conference on Housing Cloth bound. $2.00 postpaid. (Out of print.) Proceedings of the Second Netonal | Conference on Housing in America Cloth bound. $2.00 postpaid. Proceedings of the Third National Conference on Housing Cloth bound. $2.00 postpaid. ’ in America. in America.