54 HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS COMMISSION 



The question of what constitutes reasonable classification conies up 

 chiefly in connection with districting. To what length is it permissible to go 

 in the division of the city into districts with varying regulations as to the 

 height, size and arrangement of buildings? Other forms of classification 

 have received quite general acceptance. Thus tenement houses have often 

 been put in a separate class and subjected to more stringent regulations. 

 This has been justified on the ground of greater importance in relation to 

 public health or safety. Likewise height regulations have been adopted 

 varying according to the width of the street. This is in effect a districting 

 plan. The district changes with each variation in street width. This sort 

 of districting is usual and approved. It may be justified directly on the 

 ground of health and safety. A general plan of districting such as seems 

 needful cannot be justified solely on such grounds. We cannot justify 

 more stringent regulations for dwellings in the suburbs than in lower Man- 

 hattan on the ground that light, air and comfort for the residents of the 

 suburbs are of greater public importance than for the residents of Lower 

 Manhattan. It seems, however, that such districting can be justified if it 

 can be shown to be essential to the general welfare. If regulations ad- 

 mittedly appropriate and reasonable for suburban areas are admittedly inap- 

 propriate and unreasonable for congested areas, the public importance and 

 necessity for districting is clearly shown. 



Classification or districting for the purposes of regulation must either 

 be based directly on the purposes for which the police power may be 

 exercised or it must be justified by difference in injury to vested interests. 

 In order to justify more stringent regulations for dwelling-houses in the 

 suburbs than for dwelling houses in lower Manhattan it must appear either 

 that such regulations for the suburbs are more important to the public health, 

 safety or general welfare than for lower Manhattan, or that while equally 

 important for one or more of these purposes in both districts the suburban 

 regulations would if applied to lower Manhattan interfere so seriously with 

 existing property values as to render them of doubtful expediency or con- 

 stitutionality. The courts will insist that there be some fair relation between 

 the public good to be secured by the regulations and the private injury 

 suffered. Building regulations must be reasonable in order to be constitu- 

 tional. There is no absolute standard for all conditions. There must be 

 a reasonable relation between the public object to be gained and the loss 

 of property and liberty suffered. It is clear that any deprivation of indi- 

 vidual liberty is a real public loss that must be justified by some greater 

 public gain. It is also clear that extended injury to property interests may 

 cause widespread public loss and consequently should have for its justifica- 

 tion as an exercise of the police power some greater public gain. In order 

 to be reasonable there must be a proportionateness of means to ends. This 

 point is dwelt upon at length by Freund in his treatise on the Police Power. 

 He says (sec. 63) : 



" Leading courts have stated very distinctly that reasonableness 

 is one of the inherent limitations of the police power; so the Supreme 



