Superior Court dismissed lawsuit challenging Sacramento County's affordable housing ordinance
Monday, March 06, 2006
- Organization: Legal Services of Northern California
On March 2, 2006, Judge Loren McMaster of the Sacramento Superior Court dismissed in its entirety the North State Building Industry Association's (BIA) lawsuit challenging Sacramento County's affordable housing (inclusionary zoning) ordinance. The court further denied the BIA's request for leave to amend. The complaint contained nine causes of action but was primarily based on the BIA's claims hat the ordinance on its face effected an unconstitutional taking of property under the U.S. and California Constitutions.
Sacramento County adopted its inclusionary zoning ordinance in December 2004 , following two years of advocacy by the Sacramento Housing Alliance (SHA) and a broad coalition of housing advocates. The ordinance's main provision requires developers to construct or provide the equivalent via land dedication or in lieu fees 15% of all new units for lower-income households--6% for low, 6% for very low and 3% for extremely low income. California advocates believe that the set aside for extremely low income households is the only one of its kind in the country , and it has been the most controversial aspect of the ordinance.
The BIA filed its constitutional challenge in March 2005. Shortly thereafter, individual low-income residents of Sacramento, SHA, Non Profit Housing Association of California, and Housing California, represented by Legal Services of Northern California, Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Public Interest Law Project successfully intervened in the litigation. A couple of weeks later, the state Attorney General's office also intervened.
In August 2005, the US Supreme Court's issuance of its decision in Lingle v. Chevron severely undermined the BIA's constitutional claims. Based on this opinion and other grounds, the interveners decided to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Judge McMaster granted yesterday. Judge McMaster relied on the 2001 decision in Homebuilders v. Napa County which involved a similar ordinance.
A number of jurisdictions in our region, around the state and even as far away as Florida have been awaiting the outcome of this case because they are in the midst of formulating or adopting inclusionary zoning ordinances. The Sacramento decision gives these jurisdictions good grounds to move forward with their respective affordable housing policies and local laws. Here in Sacramento County the court's decision means that the 2,262 affordable units currently in the pipeline (1,654 rental and 608 for sale units) as a result of the ordinance can move forward toward construction concurrently with the market rate units also in line.
Sacramento County adopted its inclusionary zoning ordinance in December 2004 , following two years of advocacy by the Sacramento Housing Alliance (SHA) and a broad coalition of housing advocates. The ordinance's main provision requires developers to construct or provide the equivalent via land dedication or in lieu fees 15% of all new units for lower-income households--6% for low, 6% for very low and 3% for extremely low income. California advocates believe that the set aside for extremely low income households is the only one of its kind in the country , and it has been the most controversial aspect of the ordinance.
The BIA filed its constitutional challenge in March 2005. Shortly thereafter, individual low-income residents of Sacramento, SHA, Non Profit Housing Association of California, and Housing California, represented by Legal Services of Northern California, Western Center on Law and Poverty and the Public Interest Law Project successfully intervened in the litigation. A couple of weeks later, the state Attorney General's office also intervened.
In August 2005, the US Supreme Court's issuance of its decision in Lingle v. Chevron severely undermined the BIA's constitutional claims. Based on this opinion and other grounds, the interveners decided to file a motion for judgment on the pleadings, which Judge McMaster granted yesterday. Judge McMaster relied on the 2001 decision in Homebuilders v. Napa County which involved a similar ordinance.
A number of jurisdictions in our region, around the state and even as far away as Florida have been awaiting the outcome of this case because they are in the midst of formulating or adopting inclusionary zoning ordinances. The Sacramento decision gives these jurisdictions good grounds to move forward with their respective affordable housing policies and local laws. Here in Sacramento County the court's decision means that the 2,262 affordable units currently in the pipeline (1,654 rental and 608 for sale units) as a result of the ordinance can move forward toward construction concurrently with the market rate units also in line.
Topics:
