The purpose of this Article is to explore those situations in which courts have given meaning to the Euclid caveat in operation, and, from those instances, to attempt to evolve a judicial approach to the problems posed by the conflict between purely local interests on the one hand and more comprehensive regional interests on the other. Four basic premises are herein indulged: (1) that strictly local zoning is unsatisfactory; (2) that new and innovative legislation will not be readily forthcoming; (3) that the burden of mediating these conflict situations will continue to fall upon the judiciary; and (4) that present judicial expressions threaten more harm than good by treating this crucial matter in an ad hoc fashion without producing any meaningful metropolitan or regional land-use theories.
Michael H. Feiler,
Metropolitanization and Land-Use Parochialism--Toward a Judicial Attitude,
Mich. L. Rev.
Available at: https://repository.law.umich.edu/mlr/vol69/iss4/3