环球法律评论
環毬法律評論
배구법률평론
GLOBAL LAW REVIEW
2010年
3期
59-71
,共13页
城市规划%公共利益%区划%合法性%审查标准%美国
城市規劃%公共利益%區劃%閤法性%審查標準%美國
성시규화%공공이익%구화%합법성%심사표준%미국
美国区划制度是一种对土地使用进行区别分类、基于多种指标进行综合规制并且无补偿的土地规制制度。它为解决美国几乎无限制的土地使用自由引发的问题在20世纪20年代应运而生。它由1916年纽约城市条例开启先河，此后在联邦制定的标准州区划授权法的推动下逐渐得到广泛适用。在这一过程中，有关区划制度合法性的争议不断升级，直至引发诉讼。在欧几里得镇诉安布勒不动产公司一案的判决中，联邦最高法院认为对市镇土地进行区划控制从多个层次促进公共健康和安全，它与作为区划权力来源的州规制权所要求的公共健康、安全、道德或公众福祉存在实质的联系，不存在明显的武断和不合理，从而获得合法性。该判决确立了区划制度的合法性，并且为日后区划条例的合宪性诉讼提供了基本的审查标准，由此确定的区划制度初期的合法性基础正是规制权所保护的多层次内涵的公共健康、安全等公共利益。
美國區劃製度是一種對土地使用進行區彆分類、基于多種指標進行綜閤規製併且無補償的土地規製製度。它為解決美國幾乎無限製的土地使用自由引髮的問題在20世紀20年代應運而生。它由1916年紐約城市條例開啟先河，此後在聯邦製定的標準州區劃授權法的推動下逐漸得到廣汎適用。在這一過程中，有關區劃製度閤法性的爭議不斷升級，直至引髮訴訟。在歐幾裏得鎮訴安佈勒不動產公司一案的判決中，聯邦最高法院認為對市鎮土地進行區劃控製從多箇層次促進公共健康和安全，它與作為區劃權力來源的州規製權所要求的公共健康、安全、道德或公衆福祉存在實質的聯繫，不存在明顯的武斷和不閤理，從而穫得閤法性。該判決確立瞭區劃製度的閤法性，併且為日後區劃條例的閤憲性訴訟提供瞭基本的審查標準，由此確定的區劃製度初期的閤法性基礎正是規製權所保護的多層次內涵的公共健康、安全等公共利益。
미국구화제도시일충대토지사용진행구별분류、기우다충지표진행종합규제병차무보상적토지규제제도。타위해결미국궤호무한제적토지사용자유인발적문제재20세기20년대응운이생。타유1916년뉴약성시조례개계선하，차후재련방제정적표준주구화수권법적추동하축점득도엄범괄용。재저일과정중，유관구화제도합법성적쟁의불단승급，직지인발소송。재구궤리득진소안포륵불동산공사일안적판결중，련방최고법원인위대시진토지진행구화공제종다개층차촉진공공건강화안전，타여작위구화권력래원적주규제권소요구적공공건강、안전、도덕혹공음복지존재실질적련계，불존재명현적무단화불합리，종이획득합법성。해판결학립료구화제도적합법성，병차위일후구화조례적합헌성소송제공료기본적심사표준，유차학정적구화제도초기적합법성기출정시규제권소보호적다층차내함적공공건강、안전등공공이익。
Based on multi -index to regulate in a comprehensive way, the zoning in the U- nited States is a kind of system of land regulation that classifies various types of land use without any compensation. It came into being in 1920＇ as an effort to resolve problems cropped up in the exer- cise of land use right almost free of any public restraints in the U. S. In 1916, New York City passed the first modern zoning ordinance. Later on, with the impetus of the federal Standard State Zoning Enabling Act, under which municipalities may adopt zoning regulations, zoning became popular. However, the constitutionality of the new zoning law had been increasingly challenged and finally led to lawsuits. In the judgment of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Company, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the zoning regulation of land use by the zoning ordinance promoted public safety and health in many ways and further held that the zoning ordinance was not arbitrary and unreasonable, instead, it had a substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or gen- eral welfare. The zoning ordinance, thus, was not unconstitutional. The judgment rendered by the Supreme Court has established the legitimacy of the zoning regulation. Moreover, the judgment has provided a basic standard of judicial review in zoning cases concerning the constitutionality of zoning regulations. It proves that the legal basis of earlier zoning reflects exactly the multi - level public interests such as public health and safety as protected by the authority of zoning regulation.
