In Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas, 416 U.S 1 (1974), a landlord and college student renters argued that an ordinance which limited homes to single-family dwellings and used the traditional definition of a family was invalid because it interfered with one's right to live where they chose, barred seemingly objectionable people, and was a veiled social preference for groups "congenial" to the present residents. (See Village of Belle Terre, 416 US at 7.) The Supreme Court noted that "every line drawn by a legislature leaves some out that might well have been included," and that the exercise of legislative discretion in drawing that line should be deferred to by the judiciary. (See Village of Belle Terre, 416 US at 8.) Furthermore, the Supreme Court keenly recognized that "[t]he regimes of boarding houses, fraternity houses, and the like present urban problems. More people occupy a given space; more cars rather continuously pass by; more cars are parked; noise travels with crowds. "A quiet place where yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles restricted are legitimate guidelines in a land-use project addressed to family needs. This goal is a permissible one . . . . The police power is not confined to elimination of filth, stench, and unhealthy places. It is ample to lay out zones where family values, youth values, and the blessings of quiet seclusion and clean air make the area a sanctuary for people." (Village of Belle Terre, 416 US at 9.)