The following cases involve inclusionary zoning in the context of land use law and disability:
Cal. Bldg. Indus. Ass’n v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015).
Tags
- Inclusionary Housing Ordinance
- Reasonable Relationship
- Public Welfare
Story
As a means to address the lack of affordable housing units in California available to low- and moderate-income households, California municipalities have adopted inclusionary zoning/housing programs. These programs encourage developers to set aside a certain percentage of housing units in new or upgraded projects for low- and moderate-income residents. With these programs, those with diverse socioeconomic backgrounds are able to live in the same developments have access to the same types of services and amenities.
The city of San Jose put forth an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires all new residential development projects of 20 or more units to sell at least 15% of the for-sale units at a price that is affordable to low- or moderate-income households. The plaintiff building association filed a lawsuit claiming that the San Jose inclusionary housing ordinance was invalid on the grounds that the city in enacting the ordinance did not provide a sufficient evidentiary basis to show a reasonable relationship between adverse public impacts or need for subsidized housing units and the new affordable housing conditions imposed on resident development by the ordinance.
Holding/Reasoning
The ordinance includes a list of findings detailing the increasing housing costs in San Jose and the substantial need for affordable housing. The findings conclude that requiring affordable units within each development is in line with the goals of protecting the public welfare by providing an adequate supply of housing for persons at all economic levels. The court found that the conditions placed on the developers under the ordinance only places a restriction on the way the developer may use the property by limiting the price for which the developer could offer some units for sale, the condition does not, however, require that the developer dedicate a portion of its property to the public or pay money to the public. Municipalities have general, broad discretion to regulate the use of real property to serve legitimate interest of the public and community. The court found that the validity of an inclusionary housing ordinance to increase the amount of affordable housing and disperse the housing in economically diverse projects depends on whether the restrictions are reasonably related to the broad general welfare purposes for which the ordinance was enacted. The court held that the ordinance was valid.