The Validity Judgment On The Purpose Of Urban Planning

During the process of the macro control which responses the speedy price elevation of real estate, in 2006, the focus of the Chinese government's new round control on achievement of the compulsory structure of newly-built housing. One of the measures is to stipulate the regulatory plan in accordance with the compulsory structure to regulate the units and the area of housing per hectare. But the question is how to make judgment on individual regulatory plan in line with the aim of structure control and promote the housing situation of the disadvantage? The discussion on this topic hasn't be concerned in academia. To provide the theoretical support to the power control of planning in China, the author researches on the zoning, which is deemed as the major legal method of urban planning in United States. This article tries to explain the judicial criteria of legitimacy of the zoning ordinance, especially the skeleton of valid purpose of zoning.The zoning power, which state government authorize to local governments, is an aspect of state police power, A zoning ordinance mainly regulates lot, building and use. Zoning has nearly one hundred years history, but it has changed more from rigid and static to dynamic and flexible. How to judge a zoning ordinance is a reasonable exercise of police power or a infringement of people's right is an important issue in a zoning litigation. The judicial review criterion, which has formed in the precedents, is that just when zoning provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, they are unconstitutional.From the beginning, courts held that only certain objectives are sufficient to justify a zoning ordinance. For example, Supreme Court held excluding nuisance beforehand for public safety and separating industrial use from residential use for the public and domestic safety. It means that public healthy and safety are the original legitimate objects.As the zoning developed, the court began to expand the legitimate purposes to uphold zoning measures not limited to public safety and healthy. Historically, most courts have held that esthetic ends cannot be sufficient support a zoning ordinance. In some cases, courts hold aesthetic considerations are a valid secondary basis for zoning ordinance under the public safety and healthy. In some cases, aesthetic combined with promoting physical interests is considered as general welfare. At last aesthetic consideration alone is regarded as general welfare, which is the valid zoning purpose. Furthermore, New Jersey Supreme Court is a representative of state courts, which holds that a municipality bears the fair share of regional low and moderate income housing needs is to promote the general welfare.The original valid purposes of zoning are the responses to the 19-century practical urban problems, judges validated the purposes by explaining public safety and healthy embodied in the police power. Then courts expanded the legitimating purposes by interpreting the general welfare. It may be influenced by the change of judicial attitude and concept of value to recognize aesthetic purpose. Moreover, judges began to promote municipal bearing fair share of regional low and moderate income housing needs for resolve the housing crisis and residential segregation.According to the history of U.S. Case law, we can recognize that valid purposes of zoning can be expanded and we can control the urban planning by reviewing its purposes. Furthermore, American judgmental rule and the judicial consideration in the formation of rule are meaningful.