X hits on this document

128 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

48 / 52

No.

2006AP450.ssa

¶70 SHIRLEY majority opinion Majority op., ¶54 characterizing the use only zone" Simultaneously the

S. ABRAHAMSON, C.J. (concurring). The declares that the instant case is moot. n.23. Nevertheless the majority writes on, issue of the constitutionality of a "permit as one "of great public importance." majority opinion acknowledges that it cannot,

and does ordinance

the

Town

use

only

must

be

not,

determine

the

constitutionality

of

any

other

creating

a

"permit use

only

zone"

of Rhine.

See majority

op.,

¶54

similar to

that of

n.23.

Each

"permit

majority opinion, to whether the

zone" gauged

ordinance, according to the individually to determine

ordinance has a substantial relation safety, morals or general welfare.

to

the

public

health,

1 ¶71 I write for three reasons: ¶72 First, I want to stress ordinance is a decision for the court.

that the wisdom of a municipality, not for

zoning this

¶73

Second,

nothing

in

this

opinion

should

be

read

to

imply that the ordinance at issue is majority opinion characterizes the

struck down because the Town of Rhine's zoning

ordinance as uncommon.

2

The majority opinion is mistaken

the not

Town read

of Rhine ordinance is the majority opinion

very unusual. as stating or 3

In any event, implying that

that I do only

1

See majority op., ¶26.

2

See, e.g., majority op., ¶¶39, 40, 50.

3 See Brief and Appendix of Wisconsin Counties Association at 5-8 (citing zoning ordinances similar to the Town of Rhine's from 11 municipalities and counties in Wisconsin).

1

Document info
Document views128
Page views128
Page last viewedWed Dec 07 13:06:18 UTC 2016
Pages52
Paragraphs3975
Words12857

Comments