Court Holding Not a Residential Use – Ewing vs. City of Carmel

Ewing v. City of carmel-By The saa, 234 cal. Ap)3 35 1579- cal court of Appeal, 1999,

In Miller v. Euclid, the highest courts of this state and of the land recognized that maintenance of the character of residentia! neighborhoods is a proper purpose of zoning. The California Supreme Court employed language now a bit dated yet plainly relevant to the case at hand: “(W}e think it may be safely and sensibly said that justification for residential zoning may, in the last analysis, be rested upon the protection of the civic and social values of the American home. The establishment of such districts is for the general welfare because it tends to promote and perpetuate the American home. It is axiomatic that the welfare, and indeed the very e)dstence of a nation depends upon the character and caliber of its citizenry. The character and quality of manhood and womanhood are in a large measure the result of home environment. The home and its intrinsic inttuences are the very foundation of good citizenship, and any factor contributing to the estabiishment of homes and the fostering of home life doubtiess tends to the enhancement not only of community life but of the life of the nation as a whole.”(Miiierv. Board of Publicltforks supra 195 Cal at p 493.} The court observed that with home ownership comes stability, increased interest in the promotion of public agencies, such as schools and churches, and “recognition of the individual’s responsibility for his share in the safeguarding of the welfare of the community and increased pride in personal achievement which must come from personal participation in projects looking toward community betterment.” (ibid.)

 

 

‘1591 It stands to reason that the “residential character” of a neighborhood is threatened when a

significant number of homes — at least 12 percent in this case, according to the record — are occupied not by permanent residents but by a stream of tenants staying a weekend, a week, or even 29 days.Whether or not transient rentals have the other hunmitigatable, adverse impacts” cited by the council, such rentals undoubtedly affect the essential character of a neighborhood and the stability of acommunity. Short-term tenants have little interest in public agencies or in the welfare of the citizenry. They do not participate in local government, coach little league, or join the hospital guild. They do not lead a scout troop, volunteer at the library, or keep an eye on an elderly neighbor. Literally, they are here today and gone tomorrow — without engaging in the sort of activities that weld and strengthen a community.