03-26-12 Council Agenda & Packet

Home Browse Search

explicitly declares that "[a]ny doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor of its existence." T.C. 36-1-3-3(b). In view of this provision, the public nuisance statute,which expressly authorizes the City to bring a claim, resolves any doubt. I.C. 32-30-6-7(b)(2). See 796 N.E.2d 236,Dvorak.v. GV o Bloomi ton: With the adoption of the Indiana Home Rule Act, the legislature "abrogated the traditional rule that local governments possessed only those powers expressly authorized by statute." City of Gary v Indiana Bell Tel, Co., Inc., 732 N.E.2d 149, I53 (Ind. 2000). The Home Rule Act expressly broadens a governmental unit's authority to include not only"[a]ll powers granted it by statute,"but also "[a]ll other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its.affairs even though not granted by statute." I.C. 36-1-3-4(b). The Act explicitly declares that "[a]ny doubt as to the existence of a power of a unit shall be resolved in favor its existence." I.C. 36-1-3-3(b). We have applied the Home Rule Act in construing the zoning authority of governmental units. City of Crown Point v. Lake County, 510 N.E.2d 684, 685-86 (Ind. 1987). Considering the enabling legislation and Home Rule Act,we reject Dvorak's claim that the enabling legislation does not expressly authorize cities to make zoning distinctions between different kinds of single housekeeping units based on familial status, or to regulate the users of real estate rather than uses of real estate, and thus the Bloomington ordinance is ultra vires. The legislature specifically authorized governmental units to use zoning so that "residential areas provide healthful surroundings for family life," 1. C. 36-7-4-201(b)(4) (emphasis added), and in order "to promote the public health, safety, comfort, morals, convenience and general welfare," I.C. § 36-7-4-601(c)(3). The enactment of zoning ordinances that make distinctions based on familial relations of the users of residential real estate is an integral component of implementing these legislative objectives.[2] Our conclusion is further reinforced by the Home Rule Act which extends to each governmental unit "all other powers necessary or desirable in the conduct of its affairs." I.C. 36-1-3-4(b), Ind. Code 22-9-1 (b) allows a city, town or county to"adopt an ordinance or ordinances, which may include establishment or designation of an appropriate local commission, office, or agency to effectuate within its territorial jurisdiction the public policy of the state as declared in section 2 of this chapter without conflict with any of the provisions of this chapter." It seems clear that South Bend has the authority to pass and enforce an ordinance against discrimination in employment and housing under the express grant power in Ind. Code 22-9-1-12.1 (b). See Yellow Cab v. Williams, 583 N.E.2d 774(Ind. Ct. App. 1991). There is nothing suggesting that such an ordinance cannot be amended once it is enacted. 9