摘要
美国法中,土地区划指地方政府运用管理权根据不同功能区块规划土地,旨在调停土地使用冲突,促进城市化进程。其理念来自于普通法"侵扰"中阻止非直接的不法妨碍或损害土地使用的观念。随着美国城市化进程和城镇化进程的不断推进,土地区划理念逐渐由被动防止损害财产使用的侵扰理念演变为主动调停土地使用矛盾、使社区共享收益、增进公共福祉的价值追求。由于区划机构运用管理权规划城市土地必然妨碍公民的财产权利,但却不支付任何赔偿,自然引发财产权人诉诸法院,质疑区划管理权来源的合法性和区划程序的正当性。而法院裁决区划争议案件的解释和推理,既丰富了区划理论,又检验了区划理念的得失,并努力在保护个人财产与捍卫公共利益之间保持平衡。
Zoning in U.S.law means dividing the urban land into zones or districts so as to mediate conflicts of different land uses and regulate the change of land from non-urban to urban use.The power of zoning is provided for by the federal and state constitutions and exercised by local governments.Originally zoning was used primarily as a negative tool to prevent private nuisance.However,problems have emerged during the deepening process of zoning,particularly in big cities.As a matter of fact,zoning should not only plan the present urban land,but also focus on overall development of the city,environmental regulation and common good.Accordingly,the zoning concept has gradually become a tool to actively harmonize different uses of land,with the goal of promoting general welfare in policy.Since the exercise of power by the zoning authority will inevitably infringe upon the property rights of the private land owner without any compensation,the private land owners will naturally bring the matter to the court and question the validity of this power as well as the legality of zoning procedure.The analysis and reasoning made by the federal and state courts in zoning cases have enriched the zoning theory,and tried to strike a balance between protecting private property and promoting public good.
引文
[1]此条例修改后为:New York City Comprehensive Zoning Resolution(1960),Board of Estimate,Proceedings,December 15,1960.
[2]仅就主要著作来看,有关区划和土地使用整体分析的有:Julian Conrad Juergensmeyer and Thomas E.Roberts,Land Use Planning and Development Regulation Law(3d.).Eagan;West,2012;Barlow Burke,Understanding the Law of Zoning and Land use controls(2d.).Dayton:LexisNexis,2009;Beverley J.Pooley,Planning and Zoning in the United States.New York;William S.Hein&Co.,1982;涉及城市区划的力作是:Clifford L.Weaver and Richard F.Babcock,City Zoning:The Once and Future Frontier.Chicago:Planners Press,1979;关于区划或土地使用中宪法争议或者热点问题的研究为:Mary Sullivan Mann,The Right to Housing:Constitutional Issues and Remedies in Exclusionary Zoning.Westport:Praeger Publishers,Inc.,1976;有关美国区划历史研究的为:Seymour I Toll,Zoned American.New York:Grossman Publishers,1969.
[3]极为详尽地研究联邦土地法律和诉讼的代表作是:Brian W.Blaesser and Alan C.Weinstein,Federal Land Use&Litigation.Eagan:West,2011;有关分类探讨土地使用案例的二卷本力作为:John J Delaney et al.,Handling the Land Use Case(3d).Eagan;West,2011.其它有关诉讼和救济方式的研究著作为:Michael Allan Wolf,The Zoning of America—Euclid V.Ambler.Lawrence;University Press of Kansas,2008,and David H.Moskowitz,Exclusionary Zoning Litigation.Cambridge:Ballinger Publishing Company,1977.
[4]立足案例和材料分析土地使用法律基础的代表作:Jerome G.Rose,Ugal Foundation of Land Use Planning.New Brunswick:Center for Urban Policy Research,1974;从策略和技巧方面阐释区划的争议背景、特征、规划研究和各种批评等研究是:Clan Crawford Jr.,Strategy and Tactics in Municipal Zoning.Upper Saddle River;Prentice-Hall,Inc.,1969.
[5]涉及土地使用与地理、法律、联邦主义、地方主义以及财产所有人的权利等全面研究的代表作为:Rutherford H.Platt,Land Use and Society:Geography,Law,and Public Policy.Washington:Island Press,2004;关于全国和各州土地控制的利益、规划、立法机构以及环境研究的力作是:Daniel R.Mandelker,Environmental and Land Controls Legislation.New York;Bobbs-Merrill Company,Inc.,1976.
[6]关于区划问题和健康城市标准方面的著作为:James A.Kuahner,Healthy Cities—Intersection of Urban Planning Law and Health.Durham;Carolina Academic Press,2007 and Daniel R.Mandelker,The Zoning Dilemma.Indianapolis;Bobbs-Merrill Company,Inc.,1971;有关土地使用控制及改革的论著:Edited by David Listokin,Land Use Controls;Present Problems and Future Reform.New Brunswick;Center for Urban Policy Research,1974.
[7]笔者目前尚未发现区划理念或者理论探讨的专著,比较相关的论文主要有:Jahn Mixon&Kathleen McGlynn,"New Zoning and Planning Metaphor;Chaos and Complexity Theory,"Houston Law Review 42(2006),p.1221;S.J.Makielski,JR.,"Zoning,Legal Theory and Political Practice",Journal of Urban Law 45(1967),p.1;John M.Payne,"Norman Williams,Exclusionary Zoning,and the Mount Laurel Doctrine;Making the Theory Fit the Facts,"Vermont Law Review 20(1996),p.665;Robert H.Nelson,"A Private Property Right Theory of Zoning,"The Urban Lawyer Vol.1,No.4 Fall(1979),p.1;Robert B.Fiske,Jr."Real Property The Effect of Zoning Ordinances on the Law of Nuisance,"Michigan Law Review 54(1955),p.2,etc.
[8]关涉区划研究的主要译著有:[美]约翰·M·利维著:《现代城市规划》(第五版),张景秋等译,中国人民大学出版社2003年版。
[9]立足于美国城市区划法研究的论文主要有:李泠烨:《城市规划合法性基础研究——以美国区划制度初期的公共利益判断为对象》,《环球法律评论》2010年第3期;彭飞飞:《美国的城市区划法》,《国际城市规划》2009年增刊;邢铭:《从区划法看城市规划控制方法的改进》,《规划师》2002年第10期。
[10]徐爱国:《英美法中“侵扰”的侵权行为责任》,《外国法译评》2000年第4期,第9页。
[11]Comments,"Zoning and the Law of Nuisance,"Fordham Law Review 29(1961),p.750.
[12]W.Page Keeton,et al.,Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts(5~(th)ed.)§86(St.Paul;West Pub.Co.,1984),p.616.
[13]William Aldred's Case,77 Eng.Rep.316(K.B.1610).
[14]William Aldred's Case,77 Eng.Rep.316(K.B.1610).
[15]Blackstone,Commentaries on the Law of England(Oxford:Clarendon Press,1768),p.216.
[16]Dill v.Exel Packing Co.,183 Kan.513,331 P.2d 539(1958).
[17]Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S.388(1926).该案例将在后文第二部分的第四目中详细论述。
[18]Comments,"Zoning and the Law of Nuisance,"Fordham Law Review 29(1961),p.750.
[19]较早涉及公共侵扰的案件有Echave v.City of Grand junction,113 Colo.165,163,193 P2d 277,2,0(1948),以及Mandell v.Pivnick,20 Conn.Supp.99,125 A.2d 175(Super.Ct.1956).
[20]Adams v.Commirsionere,204 Aid.165,102 A.2d 830(1954).
[21]Garfield Box Co.v.Clifton Paper Bd.Co.,125 N.J.L.603,17 A.2d 5-3(Sup.CL 1941).
[22]Schroder v.City of Lincoln,155 Neb.599,52 N.W.2d 808(1952).
[23]参见John G.Sprankling,Understanding Property Law(3d.)(Dayton;LexisNexis,2012),p.484.中译本为[美]约翰.G.斯普兰克林著:《美国财产法精解》(第二版),钟书峰译,北京大学出版社2009年版。
[24]Restatement(Second)of Tort§821D.
[25]John G.Sprankling,Understanding Property Law(3d.)(Dayton;LexisNexis,2012),p.485.
[26]Charles Reich,"The Law of the Planned Society,"Yale Law Journal 1247(1966),p.75.
[27]Fiske,"Real Property—The Effect of Zoning Ordinances on the Law of Nuisance,"Michigan Law Review 64(1955),p.266.
[28]Barnes v.Hathorn,54 Me.124(1866).
[29]禁止令救济程序会涉及到组成侵扰的多种因素,诸如邻居的性格、侵扰方的本质、可获得的阻止方式、所有人的投资等。See Mary Sullivan Mann,The Right to Housing;Constitutional Issues and Remedies in Exclusionary Zoning(Wesrport:Praeger Publishers,Inc,1976),p.11.
[30]Barbie v.Connolly,113 U.S.27(1885).
[31]Soon Hing v.Crowley,113 U.S.703(1885).
[32]Seymour I Toll,Zoned American(New York;Grossman Publishers,1969),p.29.
[33]Ex Parte Quong Wo,161 Cal.220,118 P.714(1911).
[34]Davis&Whinston,"The Economic of Complex System:The Case of Municipal Zoning,"Kyklos 17(1964),p.419.
[35]关于这次灾难的详述,See Leon Stein,The Triangle Fire,Ithaca;J.B.Lippincott,1962.
[36]“如果美国区划有一个父亲,他就是巴塞特”。Seymour I Toll,Zoned American(New York;Grossman Publishers,1969),p.143.
[37]如区划先哲巴塞特1908年在德国参观了德国著名城市区划专家赫格曼(Werner Hegemann)的大规模城市规划展,另一个区划专家麦克安里还邀请赫格曼和英国花园城市和城镇规划委员会的秘书长卡宾(E.G.Culpin)莅临纽约进行指导。See Edward M.Bassett,"Distribution of Population in Cities,"American City,XIII,1915,p.7;and New York Time,March 30,1913,p.11.
[38]科瑞认为高楼大厦的心理学是:“摩天大楼表达权力、商业成功,并且为城市和商业做广告。”Jacob L.Crane,Jr.,Purpose of Investigation in Studies on Building Height Limitation in Large Cities(Chicago;Real Estate Board Library,1923),p.16.
[39]Richard Hofstadter,The American Political Tradition(New York:Vintage Books,1948),p.168.
[40]Height of Buildings Commission,Report of the Height of Buildings Commission to the Committee on the Height,Size and Arrangement of Buildings of the Board of Estimate and Apportionment of the City of New York(New York:City of New York,Board of Estimate and Apportionment,1913),p.1.此外,这些内容后来均被收入《1913年报告》。
[44]尽管在纽约1916年的城市条例出台之前,已经有加利福尼亚、密歇根等州的一些城市指定特定行业在特定区域建造、或者限制建筑物的高度等类似区划的条例,但这些毕竟只是个别调整,真正意义上的全面综合的城市区划条例诞生地当属纽约。故而,笔者以纽约为例分析区划理念及其实施过程。
[42]Edward M.Bassett,Distribution of Population in Cities,American City,XIII(July 1915),p.7.
[43]限高成为区划的一大难题,既有如何确立高度的技术原因,也有来自高建筑开发商的阻力。以波士顿为例,该市出台了限制建筑物高度的条例,以减少高楼影响光线。该条例遂遭到被限制方的质疑,但最高法院在1909年的“沃奇”案中维持了波士顿限制建筑物高度法律的有效性。See Welch v.Swasey,214 U.S.91(1909).
[44]Edward M.Bassett,Zoning(New York;Russell Sage Foundation,1940),p.113.
[45]New York Time,March 5,1916,p.15.
[46]New York Time,April 2,1916,p.5.
[47]New York Time,July 28,1916,p.12.
[48]Graham Romeyn Tayor,"How Shall We Save New York?"Survey,March 25,1916,pp.752-753.
[49]Building Zones in New York,World's Work,September,1916,p.487.
[50]New York's Zoning Law,Outlook,August 19,1916,p.821.
[51]Joseph L.Sax,"Taking and the police power,"Yale Law Journalli(1964),pp.36,62-63.
[52]Joseph L.Sax,"Taking,Private Property,and police power,"Yale Law Journal 81(1971),p.149.
[53]Richard A.Epstein,Taking Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain(Cambridge:Harvard University Press,1985),pp.107-25.
[54]Hadacheck v.Sebastian,239 U.S.394,(1915).
[55]Hadacheck v.Sebastian,239 U.S.410,(1915).
[56]Seymour 1 Toll,Zoned American(New York;Grossman Publishers,1969),p.194
[57]在后来的二十年.正如他在《自传》中所言:“我到访每一个州和全国大部分城市,但这项工作是无偿的。”Edward M.Bassett,Autobiography(New York:Harbor Press,1939),p.121.
[58]Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S.365(1926).
[59]Ambler Realty Co v.Village of Euclid,297 F.307,316(N.D.Ohio 1924),rev'd,Village of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S.365(1926).
[60]虽然尤克利德镇位于克里夫兰市的近郊,但该镇仍是独立的市政机构,镇议会有权制定区划条例。
[61]六种区划功能分别为:1号区只允许单户型住宅,2号区可以增加到双户式住宅,3号区在1号、2号区户型的基础上增加到公寓住宅以及旅馆、教堂、学校、政府办公楼等类似用途,4号区允许开设商店,5号区增加了轻工业用途,6号区扩大到重工业在内的所有用途。此外,条例还规定了各类建筑物的高度和面积等具体要求。
[62]ViUage of Euclid v.Ambler Realty Co.,272 U.S.365(1926).
[63]具体到该案例的详细分析,See Michael Allan Wolf,The Zoning of America—Euclid V.Ambler(Lawrence:University Press of Kansas),2008.
[64]Edward M.Bassett,"Zoning,Too,Has Come of Age,"American City,XLIII September,1930,pp.101-102.
[65]The Standard Zoning Enabling Act,Department of Commerce,rev.ed.1926.
[66]The Standard Zoning Enabling Act,Department of Commerce,rev.ed.1926,p.3.
[67]该研究委员会出版了两卷本的报告:President's Research Committee on Social Trend,Recent Social Trends.New York:McGraw-Hill,1933.
[68]National Planning Board,Final Report—1933-1934(Washington,D.C.:Government Printing Office,1935),p.18.
[69]Robert A.Walker,The Planning Function in Urban Government(Chicago;University of Chicago Press,1941),pp.36-42.
[70]National Planning Board,Final Report-1933-1934(Washington,D.C.:Government Printing Office,1935),p.1.
[71]National Planning Board,Final Report-1933-1934(Washington,D.C.:Government Printing Office,1935),pp.2,9,15.
[72]Arthur M.Schlesinger,Jr.,The Coming of the New Deal(Boston:Houghton Mifflin,1959),p.350.
[73]"Movement for Re-zoning and Re-Planning",American City,LIII September,1938,p.99.
[74]区划课程首先于1929年在哈佛大学设置,麻省理工紧随其后,之后康奈尔大学、哥伦比亚大学等也相继设立。Harvey S.Perloff,Education for Planning;City,State and Regional.Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University press,1957.
[75]Richard D.Heffner,A Documentary History of the United States(Sandyford Industrial Estate:Mentor Books,1956),p.258.
[76]New York Time,March 12,1916,p.18.
[77]Richard D.Heffner,A Documentary History of the United States(Sandyford Industrial Estate;Mentor Books,1956),p.270.
[78]Seymour I Toll,Zoned American(New York:Grossman Publishers,1969),pp.191,193.
[79]U.S.Bureau of the Census,Statistics Abstract of the United States;1964.(Washington,D.C.:Government Printing Office,1964),pp.1-2,17.
[80]Lionshead Lake,Inc.v.Wayne Township,10 N.J.165,181-182,89 A.2nd 693,701(1952).
[81]Lionshead Lake,Inc.v.Wayne Township,344 U.S.919(1953).
[82]在案件判决之后,仅《哈佛法学评论》就有三篇文章讨论最小面积:Charles M.Haar,"Zoning for Minimum Standards:The Wayne Township case,"Harvard Law Review,LXVI(1953),pp.1051-1063;Val Nolan,Jr.,and Frank E.Horack,Jr.,"How Small a House?—Zoning for Minimum Space Requirements,"Harvard Law Review,LXVII(1954),pp.967—986;Charles M.Haar,"The Wayne Township case:Zoning for Whom?—In Brief Reply,"Harvard Law Review,LXVII(1954),pp.986-993.
[83]Nectow v.City of Cambridge,277 U.S.183(1928).
[84]National Land and Investment Company v.John,419 Pa.504,215 A.2d 597(1966).Nectow v.City of Cambridge,277U.S.187(1928).
[85]John G.Sprankling,Understanding Property Law(3d.)(Dayton:LexisNexis,2012),p.603.
[86]Anderson v.Island County,501 P.2d594(Wash.1972).
[87]Chrismon v.Guildford Country,370 S.E.2d 579,590(N.C.1988).
[88]City of Akron v.Chapman,116 N.E.2d 697(Ohio 1953).
[89]City of Los Angeles v.Gage,274 P.2d 34(Cal.Ct.App.1954).
[90]这可以从一些案例中得到印证,例如Clutter v.Blankenship,346 Mo.961,144 S.W.2d 119(1940);King v.Blue Mountain Forest Ass'n,100 N.H.212,123 A.2d 151(1956);Mayor of Alpine v.Brewster,7 N.J.42,80 A.2d 297(1951)等,法院在判决时都与侵扰相联系,以证明区划限制土地管理行为的合法性。
[91]Comments,"Zoning and the Law of Nuisance,"Fordham Law Review 29(1961),p.752.
[92]Richard F.Babcock,The Zoning Gome:Municipal Practices and Policies(Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1969),p.116.
[93]对该方法的具体阐释,SeeMandelker,New Incentives and Controls,in W.Ewald,ed.,Environment and Policy(Bloomington:Indiana University Press,1968),pp.389,401-403.
[94]See Mandelker,"Notes from the English;Compensation in Town and Country Planning,"California Law Review 49(1961),pp.699,736-741.
[95]Daniel R.Mandelker,The Zoning Dilemma(Indianapolis;Bobbs-Merrill Company,Inc.,1971),p.45.
[96]Bruno Lasker,"The Issue Restated,"Survey,May 22,1920.
[97]S.J.Makielski,JR.,"Zoning,Legal Theory and Political Practice,"Journal of Urban Law 45(1967),p.3.
[98]Lewis Mumford,The City,in Civilization in the United States,ed.Haroid E Stearns(New York;Harcourt Brace,1922),p.3.
[99]Buchanan v.Warley,245,U.S.60(1917).
[100]Norman William,Jr.,Racial Zoning Again,American City,LXV(November 1950),p.137.
