It seems to me that you want to fix bad local policy at the federal level. This is a mistake. It is every bit as bad to fix zoning at the federal level as trying to fix education at the federal level.
The USA once had something like a market for government. Most domestic policy was made by the state and local governments. If things got too bad people could move. We have federalized domestic policy more than is good for us.
Federal regulation of housing gave us the Fair Housing Act. Much of modern zoning is a backdoor way around that act.
I'm not hopeful that getting the feds involved will improve the situation. It would be better to give people incentives for upzoning. Like school choice and public order making it less important who our neighbors are.
if we listened to people like you, we'd still have Jim Crow. Japan is one of the most YIMBY countries in the world and its due in part to handling zoning at the national level
Unrelated issue. Police powers belong to the state and local governments. Inevitable tyrannies remain local. If things get too bad people can leave. Everything we federalize will not fit local needs and be inescapable without leaving the USA.
Ok but zoning also fits in the same boat as policing and can be protested via moving with your feet as well. Hell, most states DELEGATE zoning powers to cities just as they do policing, you're just arguing for status quo bias for its own sake right now
I argue that zoning should be left to the state and local authorities. However badly it is done, a federal solution would be overly broad and restrictive. Let local jurisdictions decide if and how to change things.
There is no reason to believe zoning at the federal level would be overly restrictive, we can look to real life countries like Japan for proof of that. Zoning is so restrictive BECAUSE localism disincentivizes electeds from thinking about long-term regional planning and to be more receptive to the complaints of anyone who has the time and determination to bitch and moan at a Tuesday evening townhall (NIMBYs). Again, you're merely arguing for a status quo that frankly sucks
There is little evidence that anyone at the federal level thinks long-term, either. The genius of the US federal system, reserving police powers for local jurisdictions, it that it can limit the damage. When government screws up, it screws up for everyone in its jurisdiction.
In relation to your school choice point, I think its a real disservice to call school choice advocates "demagogues".
There is a major tension between your contention that educational methods don't matter (the null hypothesis) and school choice. If schooling doesn't matter then public schools should be just as good as private schools (roughly). And if they are just as good why should parents engage in the gargantuan efforts that would be necessary to take on the teachers union and other entrenched interest? You're asking people to make big sacrifices for something you think isn't worth it.
For parents to want to take on the burden of overturning the status quo you need to convince them that there is a huge payoff. "Your kids will end up trans if you don't pass vouchers" is a huge payoff. Ditto "your kids will wear a mask all day" or "your kids will be taught to hate you" or "insert issue here".
The irony of saying that most of what happens at school doesn't matter is that it makes the default best option for random people to dump them in the free public schools and forget it.
"... reform movements have relied on a combination of litigation and political action, rather than focusing on one approach to the exclusion of others. That was true of the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, same-sex marriage advocates,"
this reinvention of the 'Takings Clause" is simply another form of 'lawfare', this time directed against suburban middle-class families who don't fit with the woke agenda - maybe you should get Alvin Bragg to file the brief. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, don't even mention that after the J6 judicial 'takings'.
First, while you east coasters may have had zoning imposed on pre-existing property with built structures, most of the zoning in California was created prior to the commercial (or residential) development of the zoned parcels. The first California zoning was in the 1920s, when the state's population was less than 5 million and less than 10 million shortly after World War II. This means that 75% of the current California residents are living in structures that were probably built after the property was "zoned" by the local government. If the zoning was an important feature of the property when I purchased it, would I be entitled to a "takings" compensation if my property is rezoned?
Second, with this in mind, I believe that the right to freedom of association extends to the right to form community or neighborhood associations, including home owner associations. The right to form an association that governs a sub-division prior to construction would suggest that including property use restrictions would be a protected right, as long as these restrictions did not discriminate. Taking away the HOA's self determined zoning restrictions might be a violation of the association's members' first amendment rights.
Can anyone say more about how one would pursue federal constitutional litigation? Where's the biggest bottleneck in the process of getting the Supreme Court to hear a case like this? Is it the justices' willingness, or cases making it to the Court of Appeals, or lawsuits brought, or something else?
I love this idea as a policy matter and I kinda hope it happens but I just don't see how the courts could reasonably administer a rule which allows reasonable regulation but doesn't allow exclusionary zoning.
I mean obviously exclusionary zoning offers something to many owners in the area or they wouldn't be so opposed to repealing it. And yes, I think most of that is just a desire to gain for themselves the benefits of keeping their neighbors from using their own property but that's not the kind of thing you can prove in court and there are non-crazy justifications about the need to coordinate land usage. Ultimately, I just don't see how the court could coherently distinguish regulations to protect endangered species, limit pollution (suppose it's merely an irritant not directly a health harm) or the 100 other kinds of regulations the court has upheld under the takings clause.
I know many people here might prefer broader protections for property owners against regulation generally but given SCOTUS isn't going to just require almost all land use regulation to be compensated I just don't see what test could distinguish them.
It seems to me that you want to fix bad local policy at the federal level. This is a mistake. It is every bit as bad to fix zoning at the federal level as trying to fix education at the federal level.
The USA once had something like a market for government. Most domestic policy was made by the state and local governments. If things got too bad people could move. We have federalized domestic policy more than is good for us.
Federal regulation of housing gave us the Fair Housing Act. Much of modern zoning is a backdoor way around that act.
I'm not hopeful that getting the feds involved will improve the situation. It would be better to give people incentives for upzoning. Like school choice and public order making it less important who our neighbors are.
if we listened to people like you, we'd still have Jim Crow. Japan is one of the most YIMBY countries in the world and its due in part to handling zoning at the national level
Unrelated issue. Police powers belong to the state and local governments. Inevitable tyrannies remain local. If things get too bad people can leave. Everything we federalize will not fit local needs and be inescapable without leaving the USA.
Ok but zoning also fits in the same boat as policing and can be protested via moving with your feet as well. Hell, most states DELEGATE zoning powers to cities just as they do policing, you're just arguing for status quo bias for its own sake right now
I argue that zoning should be left to the state and local authorities. However badly it is done, a federal solution would be overly broad and restrictive. Let local jurisdictions decide if and how to change things.
There is no reason to believe zoning at the federal level would be overly restrictive, we can look to real life countries like Japan for proof of that. Zoning is so restrictive BECAUSE localism disincentivizes electeds from thinking about long-term regional planning and to be more receptive to the complaints of anyone who has the time and determination to bitch and moan at a Tuesday evening townhall (NIMBYs). Again, you're merely arguing for a status quo that frankly sucks
There is little evidence that anyone at the federal level thinks long-term, either. The genius of the US federal system, reserving police powers for local jurisdictions, it that it can limit the damage. When government screws up, it screws up for everyone in its jurisdiction.
In relation to your school choice point, I think its a real disservice to call school choice advocates "demagogues".
There is a major tension between your contention that educational methods don't matter (the null hypothesis) and school choice. If schooling doesn't matter then public schools should be just as good as private schools (roughly). And if they are just as good why should parents engage in the gargantuan efforts that would be necessary to take on the teachers union and other entrenched interest? You're asking people to make big sacrifices for something you think isn't worth it.
For parents to want to take on the burden of overturning the status quo you need to convince them that there is a huge payoff. "Your kids will end up trans if you don't pass vouchers" is a huge payoff. Ditto "your kids will wear a mask all day" or "your kids will be taught to hate you" or "insert issue here".
The irony of saying that most of what happens at school doesn't matter is that it makes the default best option for random people to dump them in the free public schools and forget it.
"... reform movements have relied on a combination of litigation and political action, rather than focusing on one approach to the exclusion of others. That was true of the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, same-sex marriage advocates,"
this reinvention of the 'Takings Clause" is simply another form of 'lawfare', this time directed against suburban middle-class families who don't fit with the woke agenda - maybe you should get Alvin Bragg to file the brief. As for the Fourteenth Amendment, don't even mention that after the J6 judicial 'takings'.
Thank you. I'll be sharing this with the legislature.
I see two issues with this train of thought:
First, while you east coasters may have had zoning imposed on pre-existing property with built structures, most of the zoning in California was created prior to the commercial (or residential) development of the zoned parcels. The first California zoning was in the 1920s, when the state's population was less than 5 million and less than 10 million shortly after World War II. This means that 75% of the current California residents are living in structures that were probably built after the property was "zoned" by the local government. If the zoning was an important feature of the property when I purchased it, would I be entitled to a "takings" compensation if my property is rezoned?
Second, with this in mind, I believe that the right to freedom of association extends to the right to form community or neighborhood associations, including home owner associations. The right to form an association that governs a sub-division prior to construction would suggest that including property use restrictions would be a protected right, as long as these restrictions did not discriminate. Taking away the HOA's self determined zoning restrictions might be a violation of the association's members' first amendment rights.
Can anyone say more about how one would pursue federal constitutional litigation? Where's the biggest bottleneck in the process of getting the Supreme Court to hear a case like this? Is it the justices' willingness, or cases making it to the Court of Appeals, or lawsuits brought, or something else?
I love this idea as a policy matter and I kinda hope it happens but I just don't see how the courts could reasonably administer a rule which allows reasonable regulation but doesn't allow exclusionary zoning.
I mean obviously exclusionary zoning offers something to many owners in the area or they wouldn't be so opposed to repealing it. And yes, I think most of that is just a desire to gain for themselves the benefits of keeping their neighbors from using their own property but that's not the kind of thing you can prove in court and there are non-crazy justifications about the need to coordinate land usage. Ultimately, I just don't see how the court could coherently distinguish regulations to protect endangered species, limit pollution (suppose it's merely an irritant not directly a health harm) or the 100 other kinds of regulations the court has upheld under the takings clause.
I know many people here might prefer broader protections for property owners against regulation generally but given SCOTUS isn't going to just require almost all land use regulation to be compensated I just don't see what test could distinguish them.
"Braver is a progressive living constitutionalist"
Who, or what, is "braver?"
I can't decode this.
Author of the law review article mentioned in the prior paragraph. I saw it because that's what I assumed it would be but it was easy to miss.
Manifesting