City of Atlanta v. Standish
Supreme Court of Georgia
1DissentWeltner, Justice
I respectfully dissent. The majority suggests the absence of a “significant public benefit from the present zoning.” There is a benefit which is quite significant, and that is the continuation of the residential character of one of Atlanta’s close-in neighborhoods — many of which fall under increasing pressures for redevelopment to nonresidential uses.
The zoning of surrounding properties has not changed since the owners purchased the property a decade ago. Under present zoning, according to an appraiser, the property now is worth exactly two-thirds more than the purchase price — or an average…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- Flournoy v. City of BrunswickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981
- Avera v. City of BrunswickSupreme Court of Georgia · 1978
- Ohoopee Land Development Corporation v. Mayor & Council of WrightsvilleSupreme Court of Georgia · 1981