The question for a decision here is whether or not the operation of the dog hospital, the boarding on an average of 60 to 65 dogs and the noise made thereby and the burial of the dogs on the three-acre tract constitute such a nuisance as will be enjoined by a court of equity. While the ordinance of the City of Miami supra defines a nuisance, we do not think it necessary for a decision of the case at bar to bottom our conclusions on the ordinance because this Court, in the case of City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, text p. 374, held that to constitute a thing a legal nuisance, it must be so in fact, regardless of a declaration of an ordinance on the subject. The Court said:

Initial brief at 11. Appellants' reliance on City of Miami Beach v. Texas Company, 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368 (1940), is misplaced. The City of Miami Beach enacted an ordinance prohibiting storage of petroleum products north of a certain line.

The appellees argued here, as was held by the chancellor, that the action of the city commission, in denying their request to construct and maintain a driveway into Flagler Street for use in the operation of their parking lot, was unreasonable and amounted to a denial of access to which they were entitled under the law, and they argued that this amounted to depriving them of a valuable property right and a denial of due process. In the case of City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 375-377, 128 A.L.R. 350, the Supreme Court of Florida, with reference to police power, said as follows: "While constitutional guaranties cannot be transgressed, it is well settled law that the possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to the police power and persons and property are subject to restraints and burdens necessary to secure the comfort, health, welfare, safety and prosperity of the people.

"We approve of the statement of the Florida supreme court, `It is generally recognized that anything which is detrimental to health or which threatens a danger to persons or property within the city may be retarded and dealt with by the municipal authorities.' City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 1940, 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 374, 128 A.L.R. 350. We also deem apposite the following declaration by a Texas court: `For a nuisance to be a public one, it need not affect the whole community; but it is public if injury or annoyance affect the people of some local neighborhood, or are occasioned to such part of the public as come in contact with it.' Stoughton v.City of Ft. Worth, Tex. Civ. App. 1955, 277 S.W.2d 150, 153.

When regularly enacted, an ordinance is cloaked with all presumptions of validity, constitutionality and reasonableness, and one attacking an ordinance has the burden to overcome these presumptions. An ordinance must be reasonable and not conflict with any controlling provision or principle of general law. City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368 (1940); See Fla. Const., Art. 8. § 6(f.) (pertaining specifically to Dade County Ordinances). Courts are generally reluctant to declare a municipal ordinance invalid in view of the principle that citizens of a municipality through their local legislative body should be permitted to determine what regulatory measures are needed for their own self government. Wilton Manors v. Starling, 121 So.2d 172 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.App. 1960).

Myriad cases so hold. E.g., City of Miami Beach v. Ocean and Inland Co. (1941), 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364; In Re Seven Barrels of Wine, 79 Fla. 1, 83 So. 627 (1920); Dutton Phosphate Co. v. Priest, 67 Fla. 370, 65 So. 282 (1914); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303, and City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 128 A.L.R. 350. Promotion of aesthetics may well be the object of legislation.

Reasonable restriction on the use of one's property to promote the public welfare is an accepted principle of law. See City of Miami Beach v. Ocean and Inland Co. (1941), 147 Fla. 480, 3 So.2d 364; Hav-A-Tampa Cigar Co. v. Johnson (1941), 149 Fla. 148, 5 So.2d 433; City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co. (1940), 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 128 A.L.R. 350; and Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co. (1926), 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303. We conclude that F.S. Section 83.69, F.S.A. is valid and must stand.

As stated in the leading zoning case of Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303, 54 A.L.R. 1016, the "equity jurisdiction is clear" to hear and consider an attack on an ordinance that violates the constitutional protection by attempted regulation of the use of plaintiff's property by municipalities under the guise of the police power. See also Thompson v. City of Miami, Fla. 1965, 167 So.2d 841, City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 128 A.L.R. 350. Any restrictions imposed by the police power must be upheld when they bear a reasonable relationship to the public health, morals, safety or general welfare. Otherwise, they are arbitrary and capricious and unconstitutional for want of equality before the law.

We approve of the statement of the Florida supreme court, "It is generally recognized that anything which is detrimental to health or which threatens danger to persons or property within the city may be retarded and dealt with by the municipal authorities." Miami Beach v. Texas Co. (1940), 141 Fla. 616, 630, 194 So. 368, 374, 128 A. L. R. 350. We also deem apposite the following declaration by a Texas court: "For a nuisance to be a public one, it need not affect the whole community; but it is public if injury or annoyance affect the people of some local neighborhood, or are occasioned to such part of the public as come in contact with it."

The possession and enjoyment of all rights and property are subject to the valid exercise of the police power which is an aspect of sovereignty and all persons and property are subject to restraints and burdens necessary to secure the comfort, welfare and safety of the public. See City of Miami Beach v. Texas Co., 141 Fla. 616, 194 So. 368, 128 A.L.R. 350. In the instant case, therefore, if rights to the permit became vested, such vesting was subject to the warning evidenced by the ordinance pending on first reading and, therefore, subject to the ultimately completed exercise of the police power which was signaled by the pending ordinance.