Comments on: Will SCOTUS finally rule on “disparate-impact” housing theory?

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 10 Sep 2013 14:43:51 +0000

One of the most compelling arguments FOR local zoning is that the politicians who abuse the system by zoning inappropriately to benefit their political friends (e.g., by rezoning to allow a commercial use in a residential neighborhood) can be voted out of office by the angry citizens who are directly affected.
It will always be a temptation for politicians to abuse the zoning power, because the profits are so great for the developer, and thus the political contributions, or bribes, are sizable as well.
As the great Sonny Corleone observed in a different context: “There’s a lot of money in that white powder.”

By: Hugo S. Cunningham

Hugo S. Cunningham — Sun, 08 Sep 2013 20:48:01 +0000

One of the most compelling arguments against local zoning control derives from school financing based on *local* property taxes. A town of poor-to-middling residents would need *much* higher property tax rates to achieve the same per-pupil expenditure in their public schools as a wealthy town. For that same reason, residents of wealthy towns have an irresistible financial incentive to fight moderate-to-low-income family housing development tooth-and-nail.

Some States like Maine alleviate this problem by raising school funds by a uniform *State-wide* property tax. Another possibility is compensation: either (a) wealthy towns pay a hefty commutation tax to maintain their exclusivity, or (b) States concentrate their State-level education aid on poorer school districts that really need it. Promises in the #b category, however, tend to languish in competition with lobbyists from wealthier, better organized towns.

By: PointOfLaw Forum

PointOfLaw Forum — Sat, 07 Sep 2013 13:33:37 +0000

CEI, Cato, and PLF weigh in on Mount Holly

We’ve previously discussed the problems of the Obama administration’s theory of disparate impact in housing law: e.g., Sep. 2012; Nov. 2011; July 2011; May 2011. A pending Supreme Court case, Township of Mount Holly v. Mt. Holly Gardens Citizens in..…

By: Don

Don — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 19:23:31 +0000

Why do people continue to confuse equal treatment with equal results?

By: CAptDMO

CAptDMO — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 15:13:44 +0000

How many high rise, high density, "affordable" labor housing hives have ultimately been reclaimed and removed (at great expense), citing eminent domain, as having a disparate impact on the welfare of surrounding communities they were intended to serve? Why were they commonly referred to as "The Projects"? What disparate impact did they allegedly address, typically by um... eminent domain?

By: Mike

Mike — Fri, 06 Sep 2013 13:51:43 +0000

Interesting how the very concept of zoning being a matter of local concern and jurisdiction has been eroded. State environmental laws (“little NEPAs”) and civil rights concerns are some of the tools used for this, but I think the real aim is for state and federal politicians to seize control of the zoning power, which they will employ in the service of their political friends and to the detriment of the local citizens actually affected by zoning.