* Stamper Professor of Law, Washington University at St. Louis. Professor Mandelker is the author of Land Use Law (5th ed. 2003) and co-author with Professor John Payne of a widely-used law school casebook, Planning and Control of Land Development (5th ed. 2001), both published by Lexis Publishing. This Article is based on a speech given at a Symposium entitled “Twists in the Path from Mount Laurel,” held at Boston College Law School on January 16, 2003.
1 S. Burlington Township NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713 (N.J. 1975).
2 John M. Payne, Remedies for Affordable Housing: From Fair Share to Growth Share, Land Use L. & Zoning Dig., June 1997, at 3. Many of the ideas in this article appear in this speech.
3 I also want to thank Stuart Meck and Peter Buchsbaum for their valuable ideas and comments. Of course, the ideas presented are my own. I would also like to thank Arianne Aughey for her editorial assistance.
4 See, e.g., Charles B. Ferguson, Jr., Hamlets: Expanding the Fair Share Doctrine Under Strict Home Rule Constitutions, 49 Emory L.J. 255, 257 (2000); Peter H. Schuck, Judging Remedies: Judicial Approaches to Housing Segregation, 37 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 289, 309 (2002).
5 See S. Burlington Township NAACP, 336 A.2d at 727–28.
6 Payne, supra note 2, at 3.
7 Stuart Meck, The Legislative Requirement that Zoning and Land Use Controls Be Consistent with an Independently Adopted Local Comprehensive Plan: A Model Statute, 3 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol’y 295, 306–15 (2000); see also Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 41, � 81D (2000).
8 See generally Stuart Meck et al., Regional Approaches to Affordable Housing (Am. Planning Ass’n, Planning Advisory Service Report No. 513/514 2003).
9 Terrence D. Moore, New Jersey’s Special Place: The Pinelands National Reserve, N.J. Law., Apr. 1995, at 25–26.
10 Henry A. Span, How the Courts Should Fight Exclusionary Zoning, 32 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1, 62 n.259 (2001).
11 Mount Laurel I, 336 A.2d 713, 717 (N.J. 1975).
12 Id. at 724.
13 Mark Bobrowski, Affordable Housing vs. Open Space: A Proposal for Reconciliation, 30 B.C. Envtl. L. Rev 497, 500 (2003).
14 James E. Holloway & Donald C. Guy, Smart Growth and Limits on Government Powers: Effecting Nature, Markets, and the Quality of Life under the Takings and Other Provisions, 9 Dick. J. Envtl. L. & Pol’y 421, 443–47 (2001).
15 Meck, supra note 7, at 306–15 (outlining the legislative requirements of comprehensive plans in twelve states).
16 See supra note 8 and accompanying text.
17 See, e.g., Cal. Gov’t Code �� 65300, 65302 (West 1995); Fla. Stat. ch. 163.3177(6)(f)(1)(d) (2000) (requiring that all municipal comprehensive plans include a housing element with plans for the “provision of adequate sites for . . . housing for low-income, very low-income, and moderate-income families”); N.J. Stat. Ann. �� 52:27D-301 to -329 (West 2001 & Supp. 2002).
18 Low and Moderate Income Housing Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 40B, �� 20–23 (2000).
19 James H. Wickersham, Note, The Quiet Revolution Continues: The Emerging New Model for State Growth Management Statutes, 18 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 489, 535–36 (1994).
20 Cal. Gov’t Code � 65301.5 (West 1995).
21 See Buena Vista Gardens Apartment Ass’n v. City of San Diego Planning Dep’t, 220 Cal. Rptr. 732, 737 (Ct. App. 1985) (noting that valid precedent prohibits courts from examining the “merits” of an element in the comprehensive plan).
22 Bobrowski, supra note 13, at 500.
23 Standard Zoning Enabling Act � 3 (U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, rev. 1926).
24 Id. � 8.
25 Cal. Gov’t Code � 65583 (West Supp. 2002).
26 N.J. Stat. Ann. �� 40:55D-28, 52:27D-310 (West 2000 & Supp. 2002).
27 See Am. Planning Ass’n, Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook: Model Statutes for Planning and Management of Change � 4-208.9, at 4-92 (Stuart Meck ed., 2002) [hereinafter APA Guidebook] (discussing the contents of a “housing element”); Meck et al., supra note 8, at app. (summarizing the housing elements in various comprehensive planning statutes).
28 See Cal. Gov’t Code � 65583; N.J. Stat. Ann. �� 40:55D-28, 52-27D-307(c)(1); APA Guidebook, supra note 27, � 4-208.9, at 4-92.
29 N.J. Stat. Ann. � 52:27D-301 (stating that the duties of the Council on Affordable Housing are, in part, to “[e]stimate the present and prospective need for low and moderate income housing at the state and regional levels.”).
30 Cal. Gov’t Code �� 65583, 65583.1.
31 See Cal. Gov’t Code � 65583; N.J. Stat. Ann. � 52:27D-307c(1).
32 Cal. Gov’t. Code � 65583.
33 Id. � 65583(a)(4).
34 See Zoning Bd. of Appeals v. Hous. Appeals Comm., 446 N.E.2d 748, 750–51 (Mass. App. Ct. 1983) (indicating that the purpose of the Massachusetts Anti-Snob Zoning statute is to provide swift relief from exclusionary local zoning practices that might curb construction of low- and moderate-income housing).
35 See Cal. Gov’t Code � 65583.
36 Daniel R. Mandelker, Land Use Law � 7.27, at 7-24 (5th ed. 2003).
37 George W. Liebmann, Suburban Zoning—Two Modest Proposals, 25 Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. J. 1, 5 (1990) (explaining that the allowance of accessory housing uses in existing structures expands the housing stock by adding accessory apartments).
38 Peter W. Salsich, Jr., Thinking Regionally About Affordable Housing and Neighborhood Development, 28 Stetson L. Rev. 577, 585 (1999) (stating that a number of states have enacted “smart growth” legislation, which encourages rehabilitation before outward growth takes place).
39 APA Guidebook, supra note 27, � 7-207, at 7-121 to -127.
40 Payne, supra note 2, at 4.
41 Barbara J. Lipman et al., Paycheck to Paycheck: Working Families and the Cost of Housing in America, New Century Housing (Ctr. for Hous. Policy, Washington, D.C.), June 2001, at 9, available at http://www.nhc.org/nhcimages/paycheck.pdf (last visited Feb. 7, 2003).
42 Payne, supra note 2, at 3–4.
43 Id. at 4.
44 S. Burlington Township NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713, 733 (N.J. 1975).
45 Andrew G. Dietderich, An Egalitarian’s Market: The Economics of Inclusionary Zoning Reclaimed, 24 Fordham Urb. L.J. 23, 72 (1996).
46 Charles M. Haar, Suburbs Under Siege: Race, Space, and Audacious Judges 190 (1996) (stating that by 1993, fourteen thousand units of low- and moderate-income housing had been or were being built in the New Jersey suburbs, equal to nine percent of total New Jersey housing permits during the period).
47 See John R. Nolon, A Comparative Analysis of New Jersey’s Mount Laurel Cases with the Berenson Cases in New York, 4 Pace Envtl. L. Rev. 3, 4 (1986).
48 See N.J. Stat. Ann. � 52:27D-307 (West 2001 & Supp. 2002).
49 See supra text accompanying notes 35–37.
50 Paul J. Weinberg & Nola McGuire, “Granny Flats” and Second Unit Housing: Who Speaks for the Neighborhood?, 23 Zoning & Plan. L. Rep. 25 (2000).
51 See generally George W. Liebmann, The Modernization of Zoning: Enabling Act Revision as a Means to Reform, 23 Urb. Law. 1, 17 (1991); George W. Liebmann, Suburban Zoning—Two Modest Proposals, 25 Real Prop. Prob. & Tr. J. 1, 3–5 (1990); Alan Weinstein, The Challenge of Providing Adequate Housing for the Elderly . . . Along with Everyone Else, 11 J.L. & Health 133, 140 (1996–97).
52 S. Burlington Township NAACP v. Township of Mount Laurel, 336 A.2d 713, 733 (N.J. 1975). The Mount Laurel court noted:
There is no reason why developing municipalities like Mount Laurel, required by this opinion to afford the opportunity for all types of housing to meet the needs of various categories of people, may not become and remain attractive, viable communities providing good living and adequate services for all their residents in the kind of atmosphere which a democracy and free institutions demand.
Id.
53 R.I. Gen. Laws � 45-24 (1999).