A 2017 report indicated that 149 cities and counties in California utilize inclusionary zoning to address affordable housing. This legal framework may now be challenged following a lawsuit rooted in a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The case has implications beyond the Bay Area, potentially influencing numerous municipalities. Cities have constitutional authority to impose requirements for the public good, such as affordable housing. However, changing dynamics in the court's composition since 2015 and the influence of the Sheetz decision could provide new basis for legal challenges against these zoning rules.
The implications of the lawsuit range far beyond the Bay Area. A 2017 report estimated that 149 cities and counties across California have some form of inclusionary zoning rule, making it one of the most commonly used affordable housing programs in the state and the country.
The core of Yu's lawsuit draws on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling from last year that emerged from a heated California housing dispute, providing new grounds for legal challenges to inclusionary zoning.
Whether a city decides it needs more schools, apartment buildings, businesses, or affordable housing, it has broad power under the constitution to require this for the general welfare.
The composition of the court has changed since 2015, veering sharply to the right. The Sheetz decision from last year has offered new fodder for legal challenges to inclusionary zoning.
Collection
[
|
...
]