Zoning was a relatively new practice in 1926. SCOTUS decided Euclid v. Ambler case without any understanding of how zoning would play out, and their original ruling is obviously incorrect in hindsight.
In brief:
- The lower court found that zoning constitutes a taking of property equivalent to eminent domain.
- SCOTUS overruled this and found that zoning is a “reasonable police power measure” so long as public welfare is demonstrated.
Today, zoning is often detrimental to public welfare. Zoning prevents mixed-use developments, common in almost every other developed country. Zoning enforces strict size minimums, parking minimums, lot minimums, sqft minimums, and other measures that significantly reduce the number of buildings or homes that can be built. Zoning ordinances are almost entirely arbitrary and capricious, with no reasonable studies having ever been conducted to demonstrate that “1 parking spot per 250 sqft of retail” or “25 ft setbacks” or “minimum 6,500 sqft lots” have any connection whatsoever with public welfare. Many of these zoning requirements are obviously detrimental to public welfare, being the leading cause of car-dependence and thus traffic engineering that promotes speed over safety through separating residential from business districts, as well as contributing to isolation and all manner of psychological issues.
The federal government should write some reasonable limitations on how far states and municipalities can go in restricting the rights of their citizens to develop and use their own property as they see fit. Of course it makes sense that land uses such as elementary schools and high security prisons might not fit well on adjacent parcels. However, modern zoning ordinances have little to do with reasonably separating dangerously incompatible uses, and much to do with allowing municipal fiefdoms to exert arbitrary and capricious control to prevent development in their area.