Goldblatt v. Hempstead
Facts
Goldblatt owned a 38-acre tract in Hempstead on which Builders Sand and Gravel had continuously mined sand and gravel since 1927. Excavation had reached the water table early and created a 20-acre lake averaging 25 feet deep, while the surrounding area had become heavily developed with homes and public schools. In 1958 the town amended its excavation ordinance to prohibit excavation below two feet above the maximum groundwater level and imposed other requirements. In 1959 the town sought to stop further mining because appellants had not complied with the amended ordinance or obtained a permit.
Issue
Whether Hempstead's ordinance prohibiting excavation below the water table, as applied to appellants' existing sand and gravel operation, violated the Fourteenth Amendment by taking property without due process. Also, whether the town could enforce this safety ordinance despite appellants' prior nonconforming use and earlier success in separate zoning litigation.
Rule
A land-use regulation enacted under the police power does not become unconstitutional merely because it prohibits a previously beneficial use or deprives property of its most beneficial use. The governing inquiry is whether the regulation is a valid exercise of police power: the public interest must require the interference, and the means must be reasonably necessary to accomplish that purpose and not unduly oppressive; debatable questions of reasonableness are for the legislature, and the challenger bears the burden of overcoming the presumption of constitutionality.
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
- The court's holding and reasoning
- Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
- 10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
Test yourself
If Nora argues the ordinance is unconstitutional solely because it prohibits the property's previously lawful and most beneficial use, how should a court rule?