Submitted by Faith Ross
April 10, 2015 2:00 p.m.
In listening to many attorneys over the years, I have been privileged to hear many axioms from the legal profession. We have all heard the statement, “Don’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.” Or, “If you don’t have the facts, use the law. If you don’t have the law, try to use the facts to your advantage. If you don’t have the facts or the law, pound on the table and repeat it loudly until they believe it.” The latter is generally called campaigning, which attorneys use frequently to try to argue cases that most judges don’t uphold.
When faced with new amendments to Fernandina’s Land Development Code, it seems that the Port Authority and a few of the industrial property owners seem to be beating the table. Lawsuits have been threatened for lesser things. Yesterday there was an article in the Wall Street Journal about parents suing a coach for benching their daughter during volleyball season. It seems the daughter thought she could possibly get a volleyball scholarship if she could get to play. The mere “possibility” of getting a scholarship was the sole purpose of the family’s suit. Let us not leave out the fact that the family could afford an attorney. So why not pay for college instead?
Sometimes it seems that the philosophy of the greater good is lost to a sightline of personal achievement or gain. And how far do we let the sightline blur before it destroys the greater good? The campaigning of a few industrialists seems to be trying to blur the sightline of even the U.S. Supreme Court when it comes to Fernandina’s ability to adopt zoning ordinances.
If anyone has any doubt as to the authority of municipalities to zone or adopt zoning ordinances, the U.S. Supreme Court has very few. In the landmark 1926 case of Euclid, Ohio vs. Amber Realty, a real estate company filed suit against the Village of Euclid, Ohio. Euclid had passed ordinances that affected the industrial property in question. The owners claimed it had infringed on their property rights and caused loss of property values. In upholding the Village of Euclid, the U.S. Supreme Court opined,
“Some of the grounds for this conclusion are promotion of the health and security from injury of children and others by separating dwelling houses from territory devoted to trade and industry; suppression and prevention of disorder; facilitating the extinguishment of fires, and the enforcement of street traffic regulations and other general welfare ordinances; aiding the health and safety of the community, by excluding from residential areas the confusion and danger of fire, contagion, and disorder, which in greater or less degree attach to the location of stores, shops, and factories. Another ground is that the construction and repair of streets may be rendered easier and less expensive, by confining the greater part of the heavy traffic to the streets where business is carried on.’’
“The constantly increasing density of our urban populations, the multiplying forms of industry and the growing complexity of our civilization make it necessary for the state, either directly or through some public agency by its sanction, to limit individual activities to a greater extent than formerly.” [272 U.S. 365, 392]
In other words, the U.S. Supreme Court many years ago upheld that “the state, either directly or through some public agency” could protect the safety or general welfare of the community through zoning and the enactment of ordinances.
If the City Commissioners chose to adopt the citizen proposed ordinances that prohibit an oil refinery, a coal transfer station by ship, or a commercial fruit and vegetable fumigation facility (possibly one block from a school), then affected property owners feeling slighted may appeal the decision. This type of appeal is called a “judicial appeal or review”. Which means that affected property owners disagree with the decision, and a judge gets to hear the evidence as to why the ordinance should not have been adopted. There are no money damages awarded in this kind of suit. It is basically a process by which a party tries to get the vote of the City Commissioners “overturned”. And they would need to show, for example, that the ordinances were not passed to protect the safety or promote the general welfare of the community.
Unfortunately, in the future, if the City decides to roll over and play dead with its ordinances because an attorney begins “banging a table”, it reaffirms an ugly statement that we despairingly try not to tell our children. Only those who can afford attorneys have a voice in our government, the rest of us must give up our rights, our health, and the welfare of our children and communities because we cannot defend ourselves. Beating on a table and loudly repeating someone’s wishes for financial gain may get some public attention, but thankfully our Supreme Court justices uphold community benefit. Through its ordinances, the City of Fernandina is able to protect and care for the welfare of its citizens. The sightline of that mission should not become blurry from the flurry of bangs on a community table of greater good.
Editor’s Note: As an educator and reading specialist, Faith Ross has taught in Massachusetts, Maryland, and Pennsylvania. She and her husband Chip purchased their home in Fernandina 6 years ago and are now residents. Faith enjoys reading, walks on the beach, and dining at the many downtown restaurants that are within walking distance from her home. She also enjoy telling her frequent visitors and friends from out of town that Fernandina is an amazing place to live!