246 CONFERENCE ON NATURAL BEAUTY 



cure-all. Moreover, some of this was concerned with zoning, and 

 some with nonzoning police-power controls. 



The use of zoning to promote conservation and open space in this 

 country is relatively unexplored. Moreover, this should be recog- 

 nized as a special case of one of the major problems in implementing 

 American planning how to define the proper outer boundaries of 

 police-power controls. 



This is an area where zoning can play a major role but within 

 limits. For obviously not all open land can in fact be used for more 

 intensive development. In many instances some land is clearly more 

 suitable for some such development, and other land is suitable only 

 for (or at least more suitable for), less intensive open uses. Since 

 differential treatment is appropriate in such situations, zoning is 

 the proper way to implement public policy as long as the distinc- 

 tions made are documented by the necessary technical work. Yet 

 any such scheme must keep in mind a prevailing assumption in 

 American constitutional law (and public policy) : any private land- 

 owner who decides to insist upon having some economic return 

 from his land is entitled to have it, either right away or at some 

 not-too-distant time; and preferably he should have at least some 

 reasonable choice of appropriate uses. (See for example Vernon 

 Park Realty v. Mount Vernon, 307 New York 493, 121 North East- 

 ern 2d 517 (1954) ; Morris County Land Improvement v. Parsip- 

 pany-Troy Hills, 40 New Jersey 539, 193 Atlantic 2d 232 (1963).) 

 The landowner, after all, is paying taxes on the land; and if the com- 

 munity wants to restrict his rights further, it can always do so and 

 pay for it. In American planning controls, one of the next major 

 jobs is then to redefine how far police-power controls can properly go, 

 in various situations such as this and, conversely, in what situations 

 some form of compensation should be used to supplement or to super- 

 sede police-power controls. (Tax exemption, various kinds of sub- 

 sidies, purchase of a scenic easement or various development rights 

 there are many possibilities.) In approaching this problem, a clear 

 distinction should be made between those current (or proposed) con- 

 trols providing clear public benefits, and those situations where one 

 set of local taxpayers seek to cast a heavy burden on one taxpayer, 

 for no very good reason. 



In areas of rapid residential growth, as for example at the outer 

 suburban fringe, the best way to approach this problem is from the 

 other end, i.e., by regulating such growth. If a community can (a) 



