Courts reversed their view that only profitable land uses deserve protection

Evidence

In a well-known 1963 decision, for example, the New Jersey Supreme Court struck down a local zoning ordinance that limited the use of swampland in a Meadows Development Zone. As the court explained, the ordinance allowed only “passive” activities: “All in all, about the only practical use which can be made of property in the zone is a hunting or fishing preserve or a wildlife sanctuary, none of which can be considered productive.” Since a regulation that prohibited all “worthwhile” uses of a piece of property was a taking, the court concluded, the ordinance was unconstitutional. In Just v. Marinette County, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court rejected the assumption that only profitable uses of the land deserved judicial consideration. — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 951

Categorization

• XREF: The 1963 NJ case framing wilderness as ‘not productive’ juxtaposes against the conservationist land ethic thread — same land-use mentalities at issue in tree and wetland chapters. — connects to: Ecological reasoning led courts to deny landowners absolute rights over land — Richard J. Lazarus, The Making of Environmental Law, 319; Courts rejected maximization of land value as the measure of owners’ rights — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 950; Land-use reformers redefined private land as a public resource warranting protection — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside:…, 964 (+1 more)

Broader Connections

• Land-use reformers redefined private land as a public resource warranting protection #complicates (0.85) — Adam Rome, The Bulldozer in the Countryside, 964
• Leaving cultivated land to waste forfeits one’s claim to it #qualifies (0.70) — John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 48