Zoning Ordinances Affecting The Housing Market In California

In 1969, Massachusetts fashioned the law 40B, famously referred to as the “Anti-Snob Zoning Act”, which allows developers to bypass land use restrictions in towns where less than ten percent of the housing meets the state definition of affordable. There are multiple positions and solutions to friction in Massachusetts largely inspired by controversy surrounding the State's affordable housing law, Massachusetts General Laws chapter 40B between housing advocates and open space advocates. This thesis reviews and critiques the current law, and diagnoses various legislative proposals for the progressive feud.

4. Land and building requirement delays: Passing of inspection and regulated requirements that often developmental planning and permissions are delayed.

Within each service area there is a host of many options available. Specifically, under the Public and Indian Housing is the Housing Choice Voucher Program, commonly referred to as Section 8 Housing. Section 8 is the federal government's major program for access to very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford suitable, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Housing choice vouchers are administered by the local public housing agencies (PHAs). The

“Racial tension became paramount as city officials promoted and perpetuated racial division by supporting segregation and discrimination in housing, employment, and social services” (Massey & Denton 39). Various types of residential controls contributed to the problem of residential segregation. One such tool for segregation was the establishment of zoning. Zoning was introduced in New York City in 1916 and encouraged by the U.S. Department of Commerce through the publication of the Standard State Zoning Enabling Act in 1922. Zoning proponents argued:

Many of the housing uses zoning power delegated by government officials to assure that certain races such as blacks don’t move into their neighborhood. Zoning power is regulating the use of land by state governments and local governments to exercise authority over privately owned real

The problem is there is inevitably a lack of housing, due to homelessness and influx of people. Without enough housing, the prices of the homes will be very expensive; however, if there is not a balanced mix of luxury and affordable housing, those already living there will be forced to leave because they will not be able to maintain taxes and other increases that will be tacked on to housing expenses. In order to make this process a bit more feasible, New York created the “Inclusionary Zoning program.” This program required “that developers set aside a certain percentage of units in a new development as affordable units.” The issue with this zoning ordinance is that although it was stated as a “requirement” the city kept it as a voluntary process.” With the ordinance being voluntary and developers with a capitalist mentality, many developers opted out of adhering to the ordinance. Although the residents of New York may not be in the power broker or decision-making classification, many of its inhabitants have been there for many years. Unless there are efforts to make this ordinance mandatory, there will be much opposition to keep new development out.

Different areas of the private sector took control of the racial segregation. Areas such as real estate, banks, labor, and toxic waste locations have participated in some way to continue the segregation and inferiority of people of color. “African Americans and other communities of color are often victims of land-use decision making that mirrors the power arrangements of the dominant society” (Bullard [1994]2004:269). The land-use decisions are used by the real estate industry. The real estate industry along with the bank industry have worked together in order to make it almost impossible for people of color to acquire their own homes. When individuals of color do obtain their own homes the real estate industry corrals them all into one zone. Then the banks charge homeowners in these zones high interest rates on the mortgages needed to maintain their home ownership. “Zoning is probably the most widely applied mechanism to regulate urban land use in the United States” (Bullard [1994]2004:269). When people of color are corralled into a neighborhood the quality of the neighborhood is diminished. The

California’s housing situation is severe compared to the rest of the United States. California is included in the top three states with the most “housing cost burdened individuals” (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University, 2015). In a list of 20 cities where rents were highest compared to income, 10 of the 20 cities were in California with Los Angeles, CA topping the list (Dewan, 2014). Opponents might say that households in poverty could never afford housing due to their impoverished state but poverty measures of California show that the abnormally high cost of housing in California makes matters more severe and causes the amount of households that are severely cost afflicted to increase. Furthermore, when poverty measures take into account California’s uniquely expensive and insufficient housing supply, the results show that housing costs contribute significantly to poverty. For example, when housing costs were included in the California Poverty Measure as well as federal Supplemental Poverty Measure, the poverty rates rose substantially (Wimer, Mattingly, & Levin, 2013) (Short, 2015). And when high housing costs were artificially substituted with low housing costs, poverty rates significantly dropped (Bohn, Danielson, & Levin, 2013). And it’s not just the poor who are affected! Even those who are moderate income earners are becoming financially burdened by high housing costs. Those who are moderately well off compared to low income earners are financially burdened by rent costs in expensive cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles, CA (Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,

Housing allocation determinations and planning review powers were also passed down from the state to Councils of Government (COG), which served as regional planning commissions that were thought to be closer to municipal governments and less likely to be perceived as encroaching on local land use decision-making (Ramsey-Musolf para. 7). The need for regional, as opposed to decentralized housing policies, is significant: shortages of housing in one area simply push housing burdens to adjacent cities, exacerbating statewide levels of inequality. Unfortunately, a study cited in the Journal of Planning Literature found that this well-intentioned legislation has only created a production imbalance between LIH and MRH: though collective housing element compliance may have increased between 1990 and 1997, a sample of 53 California municipalities only produced 32% of its

Eminent domain disproportionately affects racial and ethnic minorities, the elderly, and the economically disadvantaged. For example, in San Jose, California, 95 percent of the properties targeted for redevelopment are owned by minorities, even though only 30 percent of businesses are owned by minorities. These groups are disproportionately affected because they are easy political and economic targets. Condemnations in minority or elderly neighborhoods are often easier because they are less likely or able to resist. Areas with low property values are targeted because they cost less and the State gains financially when they replace areas with low property values with higher values. / / When an area is taken for "economic development," the

Mandatory inclusionary zoning violates the 5th and 14th Amendments. Lack of affordable housing across the country is an issue that has gained national attention, and some areas in the country have resorted to zoning strategies to address the problem. For example, builders in Seattle who take advantage of the Incentive Zoning program will receive additional floor area in exchange for including affordable housing units in their developments (Director’s Rule, 2015). In contrast, mandatory inclusionary zoning is the unconstitutional practice of requiring private developers to include a specified percentage of affordable housing in their projects (Lerman, 2006). Mandatory inclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause of the 5th Amendment. It also violates the life, liberty and property interest protections of Due Process as well as the equal protection provisions under the 14th Amendment.

In Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994), building a parking lot will increase the quantity and rate of storm-water flow from the property, thus keeping the floodplain free from the development would likely confine the pressures on Fanno Creek created by the new development. However, this was not enough for the city; the city wanted the land for itself. According to Justice Rhenquist, “the city must make some effort to quantify its findings in *396 support of the dedication it asks for” (Dolan v. City of Tigard 1994, 5). San Jose’s law does not solve the issue of increasing low-income housing, but instead harms entrepreneurs. The City of San Jose has made no effort to meet its burden to show that developers of new homes are somehow responsible for the astronomical prices of housing in the city. The law is an impediment to growth, an interference with the free market and an exceedingly expensive cost-per-unit way of integrating lower incomes into high land-value

In order to achieve these goals The following laws must be implemented by the government of Canada in all three levels of government. With the increase of development in the GTA, the housing market will decrease. Therefore, the municipal government will need to reduce development costs while Fast-tracking zoning approvals for residential development. It is also important that they streamline other approval times for all stages of projects to aid in the

The United States will always recall autumn of 2008 as a time of financial terror, and rightly so. After the stock market crash, millions of Americans, previously unaware of the brewing crisis, lost their businesses, their jobs, and their homes. Even now, we still are in a period of recovery from the economic turmoil of that year.

When new development or renovations on empty lots begin the citizens of the communities start asking amount them who will be the beneficiary of the gentrification. Even the displaced of mom and pop businesses are disappear. And the neighborhood no longer can afford to leave on such communities. The question is how does gentrification impact the government? Well, government plays a big role in serving low income to citizens. It create apartment that an affordable to them. It doesn’t impact the government on a negative way because they generate new policies and programs that help the people from the community. So, many types of local and states polices are design to accommodate affordable houses, even though the cost are increasing. One of the several program that the government had is one called “inclusionary zoning” (IZ). The characteristics for this program are: “(1) whether they are mandatory or voluntary, (2) what size or type of development projects are affected, (3) the required share of affordable units, (4) the