Read the following passage:
The widespread adoption of municipal zoning ordinances in the United States during the 1920s was driven by a confluence of social and economic factors. Proponents publicly championed zoning as a progressive public health measure, arguing that separating residential areas from heavy industry would reduce urban residents' exposure to toxic emissions and noise pollution. Furthermore, urban planners utilized zoning to alleviate severe overcrowding in tenement districts by mandating minimum lot sizes and building setbacks. However, modern urban historians emphasize that zoning also served less egalitarian purposes. Specifically, by establishing single-family zoning and imposing strict minimum floor-area requirements, municipalities effectively inflated housing costs, thereby preventing lower-income families from moving into affluent neighborhoods. While earlier land-use restrictions were frequently overturned by state courts as unconstitutional takings, the U.S. Supreme Court's 1926 decision in *Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co.* definitively validated zoning under the police power of the state, focusing on the mitigation of nuisances rather than explicitly endorsing economic exclusion.
Statement: According to the passage, separating residential areas from heavy industry, mandating minimum lot sizes, and mitigating nuisances are all explicitly identified as mechanisms or justifications for zoning, but utilizing the police power of the state to explicitly endorse economic exclusion is NOT.
Answer: Answer