Laserfiche WebLink
exercise of the police power and do not constitute an unconstitution- <br />a I deprivation of property. Thi s position was reaffirmed by the <br />Supreme Court of the United States in 1927.7 <br />Thus, the general legality of zonigg is established beyond doubt. <br />Subsequent decisions by this courtttii established that such ordin- <br />ances, however, could be unconstitutional when applied to a par- <br />ticular property. This established the basis for the system under <br />which the City of Indianapolis currently operates where each var- <br />iance or rezoning request is decided on its own merits. <br />THE PUBLIC WELFARE <br />The police power authorizes a gove rumen t to adopt and enforce a 1 1 <br />laws necessary to protect and further the public health, safety, <br />morals and general welfare of its citizens.9 <br />Limitations on the exercise of zoning power are essentially the <br />same as those restricting the police power under the U. S. Consti- <br />tution, i. e., they must be reasonable and guarantee due process <br />and equal protection. It may not be exercised in an unreasonable, <br />oppressive, arbitrary or discriminatory way. Zoning laws, then, <br />must have a real, substantive relation to the legitimate govern- <br />mental objective of the protection and furtherance of the public <br />health, safety, morals and general welfare of citizens, <br />The public welfare, in these contexts, means the stabilization <br />ofproperty values, promotion of desirable home surroundings, and <br />happiness,10 and embraces the orderliness of community growth, <br />land value and .aesthetic objectivesll and is reasonably design- <br />ed to further the advancement of a community as a social, econom- <br />ic and political unity.12 <br />CONTROL OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT13 <br />Reacting to the increased availability of pornography in the United <br />States and attendant pressures at the community level for its con- <br />trol, a number of municipal governments have addressed the pro- <br />liferation of adult entertainment businesses through, among var- <br />ious methods, land use controls. The validity of such an approach <br />was upheld in 1976 in the landmark decision Younq v. American <br />Mini Theatres, Inc.i4 in which the Court upheld a Detroit zoning <br />ordinance which prohibited more than two adult movie theaters or <br />other sexually -orientated enterprises from locating within 1000 <br />feet of one another or certain other designated businesses. Against <br />EVER00085 <br />