R. S. Const. Co., Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore
| Decision Date | 05 October 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 3,3 |
| Citation | 309 A.2d 629,269 Md. 704 |
| Parties | R. S. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. v. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE. |
| Court | Maryland Court of Appeals |
Eugene Hettleman, Baltimore, for appellant.
Richard M. Hartman, Spec. Asst. City Solicitor, Baltimore (George L. Russell, Jr., City Sol. and Joseph S. Matricciani, Asst. City Sol., Baltimore, on the brief), for appellee.
Argued before MURPHY, C. J., and BARNES, McWILLIAMS, SINGLEY, SMITH, DIGGES and LEVINE, JJ.
R. S. Construction Company, Inc., (R. S. Construction) here appeals because it was unsuccessful in its attack on a Baltimore City ordinance requiring property owners to maintain dwellings in urban renewal areas in accordance with standards not required of all property owners in Baltimore City. It likewise will be unsuccessful here.
R. S. Construction owns a house at 623 West Lanvale Street in Baltimore. This is in the Upton urban renewal area. The city ordinance in question requires a properly equipped bathroom in each home properly connected to the public sanitary sewer or an approved sewage disposal system, with hot and cold water lines, within and accessible from within the dwelling unit; utility spaces containing heat-producing, air-conditioning and other equipment to be ventilated to the outer air and the air from such spaces not to be recirculated to other parts of the building in such a way as to create a hazard to occupants; natural ventilation of spaces such as attics and enclosed basementless space with exterior ventilation openings to be effectively screened where needed; the removal of lead base paint from interior surfaces of dwellings; windows with 'right-fitting' sashes of proper size and design with the elimination of sashes with rotten wood or broken joints; floor covering for kitchens and bathrooms of a waterproof, non-absorptive material; no unvented, open flame gas space heaters; and the installation of at least two separate duplex convenience electrical outlets in every habitable room of the structure except for the requirement of three such outlets in any room other than a sleeping or dining room which has a perimeter of over 50 feet. There are at least 11 urban renewal areas in Baltimore City to which these regulations apply. Prior to the passage of the ordinance, Baltimore City determined through a house to house inspection 'that the area, in general, was . . . blighted, deteriorated or deteriorating' and that it thus 'constituted a serious and growing menace, injurious and inimical to the public health, safety, morals and general welfare of the residents of the City of Baltimore.' Such a legislative finding was in the ordinance in question.
R. S. Construction objects to these additional standards saying that 'such standards for residential properties do not apply to other similar residential property not within the area affected by said Ordinance, or similar ordinances, but situate in the City of Baltimore, and there are such other similar residential properties.' It contends 'there is no reasonable basis for such discrimination' and that the ordinance thus 'violate(s) the equal protection clause of the federal and state constitutions.'
The trial judge (Ross, J.) had the matter before him on stipulation of the parties and certain exhibits filed pursuant to those stipulations. No evidence was presented by R. S. Construction other than its statement in the stipulation that there are other homes in Baltimore similar to its dwelling at 623 West Lanvale Street to which such standards do not apply. Judge Ross held that no evidence was presented sufficient to overcome the presumption of constitutionality.
As Judge Oppenheimer put it for the Court in Queen Anne's County v. Miles, 246 Md. 355, 228 A.2d 450 (1967):
'A person who contends that there has been a denial of the equal protection of the laws has the burden of showing that his situation is the same as another situation, and that the State, or its instrumentalities, has treated the two situations differently in an unreasonable or arbitrary manner.' Id. at 378, 228 A.2d at 462.
See also Prince George's Co. v. McBride, 268 Md. 522, 532, 302 A.2d 620 (1973); Adm'r, Motor Veh. Adm. v. Vogt, 267 Md. 660, 671-672, 299...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Donnelly Advertising Corp. of Maryland v. City of Baltimore
...renewal area, and other parts of the city are not, sufficiently justifies the Oldtown sign prohibition. See R. S. Constr. Co. v. City of Baltimore, 269 Md. 704, 309 A.2d 629 (1973); Maryland Mort. & Inv. Co. v. State, 25 Md.App. 8, 332 A.2d 675, cert. denied, 275 Md. 753 (1975), where housi......
-
Tidewater/Havre de Grace, Inc. v. Mayor and City Council of Havre de Grace
...it is the policy of this Court to favor an interpretation that upholds the validity of an ordinance, see R.S. Constr. Co. v. Baltimore, 269 Md. 704, 706, 309 A.2d 629, 630 (1973) ("The oft expressed presumption in favor of the constitutionality of a statute, is no less true of an ordinance,......
-
Cade v. Montgomery County
...hand. Discussion At the outset, we observe that an ordinance, like a statute, is presumed to be valid. R.S. Construction Co. v. City of Baltimore, 269 Md. 704, 706, 309 A.2d 629 (1973). A legislative enactment is within the permissible bounds of the police power if it is reasonably and subs......
-
Mayor & City Council of Baltimore v. Priceline.com Inc.
...omitted). There is a strong presumption in favor of the constitutional validity of civil ordinances. See R.S. Constr. Co. v. Baltimore, 309 A.2d 629, 630-31 (Md. 1973). "[T]he burden is upon the person attacking its constitutionality, who must clearly show the unconstitutionality of the sta......