\n<\/p>\n
Whether a city decides it needs more schools, apartment buildings, businesses or, in the case of inclusionary zoning, affordable housing, it has broad power under the constitution to \u201cdecide, for the good of the general welfare, that we\u2019re going to require this,\u201d said Mike Rawson, director of litigation at the Public Interest Law Project.<\/p>\n
The state Supreme Court ruled as such most recently in 2015. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to weigh in, a tacit approval.<\/p>\n
\u201cThey can always change their mind,\u201d said Rawson. \u201cI don\u2019t see a basis for it, though obviously that doesn\u2019t necessarily stop them.\u201d<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
\u201cSheetz really helps out here a lot\u201d in that campaign, said Deerson. He pointed to other challenges in Denver<\/a> and Teton County, Wyoming<\/a>. \u201cI would expect them to keep coming.\u201d<\/p>\n If and when the nation\u2019s highest court takes up the issue of inclusionary zoning, it will be wading into one of the more politically charged debates in housing policy.<\/p>\n Evidence on the impact of these laws is mixed<\/a>. Requiring private developers to build affordable units can and regularly does result in more local housing options for lower-income tenants at no additional cost to taxpayers. By putting affordable and market-rate units side-by-side, they also promote economic and racial integration, supporters argue.<\/p>\n But inclusionary requirements can also make any given housing project less profitable, meaning that fewer units get built, leading to higher prices and rents overall<\/a>. In housing markets, like California\u2019s, that see relatively little new development, the rate at which these programs add designated affordable units to the housing stock is also quite slow.<\/p>\n That policy debate isn\u2019t relevant to the legal case, which will be fought and won over abstract constitutional principles. But for libertarian-leaning groups like the Pacific Legal Foundation, building industry groups and many \u201cYes In My Backyard\u201d housing development advocates, an end to inclusionary zoning would be a win on both fronts.<\/p>\n \u201cIn addition to being illegal, I think that these inclusionary zoning policies are also frankly stupid,\u201d said Deerson.<\/p>\n This article was originally published on CalMatters<\/a> and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives<\/a> license.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\nTradeoffs in housing policy<\/h2>\n