Court: Cities can force developers to include affordable housing

The California State Supreme Court has ruled that developers can be forced to lose money on developments; they can be forced to build affordable housing. This is turn raises the cost of market priced housing, making California the highest in cost for homes and apartments in the nation. By doing this, the Court has set up every community in the State for a raise in the crime rate—since affordable housing, nationwide has higher crimes rates than the rest of the community.

““The conditions that the San Jose ordinance imposes upon future developments do not impose exactions upon the developers‘ property so as to bring into play the unconstitutional conditions doctrine under the takings clause of the federal or state Constitution,” says the unanimous Supreme Court ruling Monday. “Furthermore … an in lieu monetary fee that is imposed to mitigate a particular adverse effect of the development proposal under consideration — the conditions imposed by the San Jose ordinance at issue here do not require a developer to pay a monetary fee but rather place a limit on the way a developer may use its property.”

The court ruling is clear—if government steals property, it is not stealing. Only people can steal, not government. There are more homes build in a year in Houston than in the entire State of California—now you know why.

urban-housing-sprawl-366c0

Court: Cities can force developers to include affordable housing

Central Valley Business Times, 6/15/15

  • Supreme Court upholds San Jose ordinance
  • Could impact nearly 200 California cities immediately

Housing developers can be required by cities to include a percentage of their homes for low- or moderate-income buyers, the California Supreme Court says.

The ruling upholds a Court of Appeal decision that backed the city of San Jose, which had been challenged by the California Building Industry Association.

“The conditions that the San Jose ordinance imposes upon future developments do not impose exactions upon the developers‘ property so as to bring into play the unconstitutional conditions doctrine under the takings clause of the federal or state Constitution,” says the unanimous Supreme Court ruling Monday. “Furthermore … an in lieu monetary fee that is imposed to mitigate a particular adverse effect of the development proposal under consideration — the conditions imposed by the San Jose ordinance at issue here do not require a developer to pay a monetary fee but rather place a limit on the way a developer may use its property.”

Noting that the problem of finding affordable housing in California has become worse over the years, the state’s highest court says the city had a constitutionally legitimate reason to use the ordinance to increase “the number of affordable housing units in the city in recognition of the insufficient number of existing affordable housing units in relation to the city‘s current and future needs” and assure “that new affordable housing units that are constructed are distributed throughout the city as part of mixed-income developments in order to obtain the benefits that flow from economically diverse communities and avoid the problems that have historically been associated with isolated low income housing.”

The ruling is expected to have wide-ranging impact as nearly 200 California cities have adopted some form of the San Jose ordinance.

 

About Stephen Frank

Stephen Frank is the publisher and editor of California Political News and Views. He speaks all over California and appears as a guest on several radio shows each week. He has also served as a guest host on radio talk shows. He is a fulltime political consultant.

Comments

  1. Really??? says

    San Jose has always had the “arm pit” syndrome intelligence factor and has now proven it.

    RHNA, RHNA, RHNA!!! Boy the Democrats knew what they were doing. Now the petty gang bosses known as social levelers in city council positions have upped the anti. (don’t play poker … look it up)

    It started with “social justice” that the middle of the road and right were scared to challenge “because we don’t want to seem to be mean” let go.

    What is just about taking property rights and forcing property owners to do or what they don’t want to do and cost them money?

    Consolidation of power. Pure and simple. Putin is the down stream of Communist failure but controls private rights. Brown, is the down stream of Socialist failure but consolidated power in growing leaps. Do the Democrats think we have forgotten Hanoi Jane, Tom Hayden, the Weather Underground, and the rest?

    Radicals and traitors, that socialists teachers were and are willing to ignore because they are right, and freedom and property rights are wrong.

    Remind a Democrat when they lose a prime house sale because of these new rulings.

  2. Kiss Kelo Hello, and your a$$ Good-bye!

Speak Your Mind

*