RECORD OF TESTIMONY AND STATEMENTS IN RELATION TO 83 



NECESSITY FOR DISTRICTING PLAN 



change into covenants before they would sanction the title. During the past 

 twenty-five years, in both of the above counties, restrictions have been by 

 covenants running with the land. A violation of these covenants can ordi- 

 narily be prevented by injunction, or, after a building in violation of them 

 has been constructed, damages can be obtained against the violator. These 

 covenants have sometimes been in perpetuity. The trouble with perpetual 

 restrictions has proved to be that the original owners could not foresee the 

 growth of the city or the tendency of controlling uses. Sometimes a locality 

 that has been perpetually restricted for residences has become surrounded 

 with business, so that the character of the locality has changed ; in such 

 cases the courts have frequently held that restrictions have become in- 

 operative because of the change of character of the neighborhood. The 

 process of change has produced a turmoil in every case where the supposed 

 protected landowner has for a series of years been uncertain whether his 

 property would be protected by the courts or not. This has led to lack of 

 improvements, lack of proper upkeep, and to the removal of people from 

 the locality who would have stayed if the prospect was more certain. 



More frequently, however, the restrictions have been for a certain 

 number of years, the date bejng expressed when they would lapse and 

 become void. The courts have not been so ready to set aside these time- 

 limit restrictions because of change of character of neighborhoods. They 

 have, however, been an uncertain and incomplete protection for a permanent 

 class of structures. If the locality is a small one, the surroundings some- 

 times grow up in a way that renders a small locality unable to carry out the 

 restrictions to advantage. Then, too, one owner will violate the restrictions 

 in a slight degree, the next owner violates them a little more, and when a 

 gross violation occurs the property owner applying for an injunction will 

 be met with the allegation that he has acquiesced in the violation of restric- 

 tions in former cases to such an extent that he has now lost the equitable 

 assistance of the court. In this way, restrictions are sometimes virtually 

 abolished before the time limit has run. While this gradual change is going 

 on the locality is in a chaotic condition and owners are afraid to build in a 

 permanent way. Another drawback of time-limit restrictions is that within 

 the last five or eight years of the restrictive period people who have vacant 

 land will hold it out of the use required by the restrictions, hoping that 

 when the restrictions expire they can build in a way that will exploit the 

 land which is already improved. When, therefore, prospective purchasers 

 come into a restricted locality and see corner lots or desirable locations 

 unimproved, they are thereby warned not to buy or build in that locality 

 because they foresee that the land that is being held out of use will prob- 

 ably be built up with structures that will be injurious to the surrounding 

 buildings. 



Exploitation of restricted areas by unscrupulous developers 



A tendency has grown up within recent years for land developers to 

 place short-time restrictions on their land, hoping that they can bring about 

 a high class of dwellings on that which is sold. Then the developer him- 

 self holds part of the property until the restrictions expire, expecting to get 

 a higher price for the parcels which he has retained, thus exploiting his 

 own prior customers. This method is akin to the method adopted by some 

 developers who have sold parcels to purchasers who will covenant to erect 

 high-class detached one-family dwellings. When the owner has sold prac- 

 tically all of his property except the corners, holding those entirely unre- 



