【作者】 李泠烨；

【导师】 朱芒；

【作者基本信息】 华东政法大学 ， 宪法学与行政法学， 2007， 硕士

【摘要】 在应对房地产价格迅速攀升的宏观调控中，2006年政府新一轮调控着重在强制性的新建住房结构比例的落实，调节手段之一是根据住房套型结构比例的规定编制控制性详细规划，明确住宅建筑套密度和住宅面积净密度强制性指标。但如何判断具体的控制性详细规划是否符合了调控住房供应结构，促进弱势人群的住房需求的供给的宏观调控的目标?该讨论在我国法学界还没有完全展开。为了对规划权力的控制提供理论的支撑，笔者对美国城市规划的主要法律手段——分区制度(Zoning)进行研究，试图把握法院对于分区条例的合法性的判断标准，厘清法院认可的规划的合法目的的演化扩展的脉络，为中国问题的解决提供借鉴和参考。美国分区权力主要来自于各州所拥有的警察权力(Police Power)，州通过授权将该权力交由各地方政府行使。分区条例主要是对于地块、建筑物和行为三方面进行管理。分区条例从诞生至今已经有近百年的历史，已经发生了很大的变化，传统严格的静态的分区中已经逐渐地充实加入动态的灵活的手段。如何确定分区条例是合理警察权的运用还是侵犯了当事人的权利这在分区诉讼中是重要的争议焦点。在司法实践中形成的标准是与公共健康、安全、道德或一般福祉有着实质性的联系，不存在明显的武断和不合理的分区条例就是合法的警察权的执行。以欧几里德案为代表的第一批的分区诉讼中，法院肯定的是以公共安全为目的的“妨害”事先排出以及公共和家庭生活健康和安全为目的的工商业和住宅用途的分离，也就是指公共的健康和安全是分区产生之初主要的合法目的。随着分区制度的发展，法院在解释什么是分区的合法目的时，不局限于公共健康和安全，出现了扩展的趋势。法院逐渐摆脱了拒绝接受审美分区为合法目的的传统，对于审美的态度发生了转变认为审美作为公共安全和健康目标的次要考虑是可以被接受的或者认为审美和促进物质性利益考虑的结合是公共福祉内在的部分或者认为审美单独解释为公共福祉成为合法的分区目的。以新泽西州为代表的州法院在劳雷尔山系列案件等标志性案例中，提出了分担地区的中低收入住房供给的公平份额是各地方政府分区中应当实现的分区目的。分区产生之初的合法目的主要是法律回应19、20世纪的美国城市化进程中的现实问题，司法在现有宪政框架中警察权的概念之下通过公共健康和安全的强调承认了该权力的合法性。在两个扩展趋势中法院通过对于警察权内含的“公共福祉”的解释拓展了分区权力的合法目的的理解。审美目的的扩展是受到了司法态度转换、社会价值判断发生转变等诸因素影响的结果。而司法推动之下的地区中低收入住房供给的目的是寻求住房危机和居住区隔离等困境出路的司法探索。分区在其漫长的百年历史的发展中，“单纯的起源已经发展成为更广阔的公共利益的概念”。美国经验启示我们城市规划合法目的随着社会发展而产生的扩张性，并且可以从合目的性的角度对城市规划进行法律控制。此外美国分区条例合法目的审查的标准和标准形成的司法考量对中国问题的解决也是有意义的。更多还原

【Abstract】 During the process of the macro control which responses the speedy price elevation of real estate, in 2006, the focus of the Chinese government’s new round control on achievement of the compulsory structure of newly-built housing. One of the measures is to stipulate the regulatory plan in accordance with the compulsory structure to regulate the units and the area of housing per hectare. But the question is how to make judgment on individual regulatory plan in line with the aim of structure control and promote the housing situation of the disadvantage? The discussion on this topic hasn’t be concerned in academia. To provide the theoretical support to the power control of planning in China, the author researches on the zoning, which is deemed as the major legal method of urban planning in United States. This article tries to explain the judicial criteria of legitimacy of the zoning ordinance, especially the skeleton of valid purpose of zoning.The zoning power, which state government authorize to local governments, is an aspect of state police power, A zoning ordinance mainly regulates lot, building and use. Zoning has nearly one hundred years history, but it has changed more from rigid and static to dynamic and flexible. How to judge a zoning ordinance is a reasonable exercise of police power or a infringement of people’s right is an important issue in a zoning litigation. The judicial review criterion, which has formed in the precedents, is that just when zoning provisions are clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, they are unconstitutional.From the beginning, courts held that only certain objectives are sufficient to justify a zoning ordinance. For example, Supreme Court held excluding nuisance beforehand for public safety and separating industrial use from residential use for the public and domestic safety. It means that public healthy and safety are the original legitimate objects.As the zoning developed, the court began to expand the legitimate purposes to uphold zoning measures not limited to public safety and healthy. Historically, most courts have held that esthetic ends cannot be sufficient support a zoning ordinance. In some cases, courts hold aesthetic considerations are a valid secondary basis for zoning ordinance under the public safety and healthy. In some cases, aesthetic combined with promoting physical interests is considered as general welfare. At last aesthetic consideration alone is regarded as general welfare, which is the valid zoning purpose. Furthermore, New Jersey Supreme Court is a representative of state courts, which holds that a municipality bears the fair share of regional low and moderate income housing needs is to promote the general welfare.The original valid purposes of zoning are the responses to the 19-century practical urban problems, judges validated the purposes by explaining public safety and healthy embodied in the police power. Then courts expanded the legitimating purposes by interpreting the general welfare. It may be influenced by the change of judicial attitude and concept of value to recognize aesthetic purpose. Moreover, judges began to promote municipal bearing fair share of regional low and moderate income housing needs for resolve the housing crisis and residential segregation.According to the history of U.S. Case law, we can recognize that valid purposes of zoning can be expanded and we can control the urban planning by reviewing its purposes. Furthermore, American judgmental rule and the judicial consideration in the formation of rule are meaningful.更多还原