Tag Archives: land use

Building a Wall

Posted on by

photo by I, Xauxa

Realtor.com quoted me in Mark Zuckerberg Annoys His Neighbors by Building a Big Wall. It opens,

They say good fences make good neighbors, but that’s definitely not the case for Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. Word has it he’s been building a 6-foot wall around his 700-acre property in Kilauea, Kauai—and this construction has sparked an outcry among his neighbors, who say the wall obstructs the gorgeous ocean view.

“It’s immense,” longtime resident Gy Hall told West Hawaii Today. “It’s really sad that somebody would come in and buy a huge piece of land, and the first thing they do is cut off this view that’s been available and appreciated by the community here for years.”

To make their annoyance known, neighbors have resorted to posting messages on Zuckerberg’s wall—the real wall, not the virtual one on his Facebook profile—asking (mostly) politely for him to take it down. But the signs get removed soon after they appear (most likely by the tech giant’s henchmen).

Granted, it does seem to be a bit of a travesty when a billionaire swoops in and builds a wall that blocks ocean vistas that have been enjoyed by Hawaiians for centuries. So, what are the rules, exactly, on building walls or fences on your property? Can you build whatever you want, or might he have overstepped his bounds?

“Fence and wall limits are generally set by local laws, and residential properties generally have a maximum allowable height,” says David Reiss, research director at the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship at Brooklyn Law School. “Common limits are 6 feet for backyard fences and 4 feet for front-yard fences.”

That said, in relatively unpopulated areas like Kauai, it’s certainly possible that no laws exist at all.

Affirmatively Furthering Neighborhood Choice

Posted on by
Professor Kelly

Professor Kelly

Jim Kelly has posted Affirmatively Furthering Neighborhood Choice: Vacant Property Strategies and Fair Housing to SSRN (forthcoming in the University of Memphis Law Review). He writes,

With the Supreme Court’s Inclusive Cmtys. Project decision in June 2015 and the Obama Administration’s adoption, the following month, of the Final Rule for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing, local government accountability for ending segregation and resolving the spatial mismatch between affordable housing and economic opportunity has been placed on a more solid footing. Instead of being responsible only for overt, conscious attempts to harm protected groups, jurisdictions that receive money from HUD will need to take a hard look at their policies that perpetuate the barriers to housing opportunity for economically marginalized protected groups. The duty to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing, although somewhat aspirational in its formulation, requires HUD grant recipients to engage with fair housing issues in a way that the threat of litigation, even disparate impact litigation, never has.

For cities struggling with soft residential real estate markets, HUD’s concerns about land use barriers to affordable housing may seem tone deaf. Advocates challenging exclusionary policies have often focused on cities with high housing costs. Even a city with large vacant problems, such as Baltimore, was sued primarily because of its location with a strong regional housing market. But, concerns about social equity in revitalizing communities make the Final Rule’s universal approach to AFFH very relevant to cities confronting housing abandonment in its older, disinvested neighborhoods. This Articles has shown that attention to the Final Rule’s new Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) reporting system is warranted both as a protective measure and as an opportunity to advance core goals of creating and sustaining an attractive and inclusive network of residential urban communities. (30-31)

For those of us who have trouble parsing the contemporary state of fair housing law in general and the AFFH rule in particular, the article provides a nice overview. And it offers insight into how fair housing law can help increase “the supply of decent, affordable housing options to members of protected groups . . .” (2) Not a bad twofer for one article.

Making the Switch to Dirt Law

Posted on by

photo by Tunde

Lawyer & Statesman quoted me in Real Estate Lawyers in Demand about how lawyers can make the transition to a dirt law practice. It reads, in part,

Real estate is one of the most fickle industries around — hot when the economy is growing and cold when it is not. The good news is that real estate is growing again and that means more jobs for attorneys.

Robert Half Legal, a legal staffing agency, reports that the real estate lawyer is the third most in-demand legal position in the South Atlantic region. Real estate is the second-fastest-growing legal industry in the South Atlantic region and the fourth fastest in the Mountain and Pacific regions.

At Brooklyn Law School, real estate law has become the most popular specialization. Graduates are finding more jobs in the specialization’s niche areas such as cooperative and condominium representation, said Professor David Reiss, who also serves as the academic program director of the Center for Urban Business Entrepreneurship.

If you have the time and money, Reiss thinks additional training in real estate can certainly help attorneys specialize their experience in the law. Course and certificates seem to be the best option in regards to both time and money.

“Taking a few relevant courses might make sense for most people instead of devoting the time and money that an LL.M. in real estate would entail,” he said. “Certain kinds of certificates can also help you stand out from other candidates, like the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certificate. It does not involve nearly as much time or money as an LL.M. degree would, but it does signal a level of knowledge and commitment to a particular practice area.”

Don’t worry about getting your real estate license (unless you already have one). Spreading yourself too thin will be more harmful than productive, Reiss said. Attorneys also need to consider the requirements and restrictions of their individual jurisdiction.

“In some jurisdictions, such as New York, members of the bar are exempt from the various requirements necessary to become a licensed real estate broker,” he said. “But in my experience, lawyers are better off doing one thing well — being good lawyers — rather than being a jack of all trades.”

As with a lot of specialized areas of the law, real estate law has plenty of niche areas in which lawyers can further delve into. This can make you more attractive to clients and employers.

“Specializing in areas of the law relating to real estate can make a lot of sense — co-ops, condos and HOAs; construction law; land use; finance; affordable housing; and foreign investment programs, to name a few,” Reiss said.

*     *     *

While real estate can be up and down, Reiss said real estate law could be a good field even during slower economic times.

“No matter what the economy as a whole is doing, clients are still buying and selling properties, financing and refinancing them, and entering into property leases,” he said.

To prepare for careers in real estate law, Brooklyn Law School encourages job applicants to have very focused resumes, which increases their marketability.

“We find that students with focused resumes can make a compelling case to a range of real estate employers, even if their overall GPA is not high,” Reiss said.

Participating in bar association committees is also highly recommended for networking and learning purposes. Reiss says it is important to notify your network that you are transitioning into a new specialization.

“A good word about your work ethic and ability to learn can help compensate for a lack of direct experience,” Reiss said.

All that said, Reiss recommends attorneys be sure of their specialization interests before getting too far into the field.

“You should keep in mind that once you specialize, many people will pigeonhole you in that area,” he said. “So you want to make sure that you like the practice area and that there is a sufficient flow of work to keep you busy.”

Zoning Rules and Income Inequality

Posted on by
Bill Fischel photo 2015

Bill Fischel

William Fischel, a preeminent land use scholar, has recently published Zoning Rules!: The Economics of Land Use Regulation. The abstract for the book reads,

Zoning has for a century enabled cities to chart their own course. It is a useful and popular institution, enabling homeowners to protect their main investment and provide safe neighborhoods. As home values have soared in recent years, however, this protection has accelerated to the degree that new housing development has become unreasonably difficult and costly. The widespread Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) syndrome is driven by voters’ excessive concern about their home values and creates barriers to growth that reach beyond individual communities. The barriers contribute to suburban sprawl, entrench income and racial segregation, retard regional immigration to the most productive cities, add to national wealth inequality, and slow the growth of the American economy. Some state, federal, and judicial interventions to control local zoning have done more harm than good. More effective approaches would moderate voters’ demand for local-land use regulation—by, for example, curtailing federal tax subsidies to owner-occupied housing.

The book engages with many other leading land use scholars like Edward Glaeser, Robert Ellickson and Vicki Been so the reader gets a good sense of what is at stake in contemporary land use debates.

I was particularly intrigued by Fischel’s discussion of the relationship between land use policies and income inequality. He writes that, “Moving to opportunity was an important source of income equalization for the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. That migration trend has nearly stopped as a result of increased land use regulation in the high-productivity areas” on the coasts. (166-67). The book carefully parses out how such changes in land use regulation had such a big effect on people’s choices.

You can find the first chapter of Zoning Rules! here if you want to give the book a test run.

 

Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning in NYC

Posted on by

"East New York" by MMZach

New York City Comptroller Scott Stringer issued an analysis of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing and the East New York Rezoning. It opens,

In an effort to address the City’s ongoing affordable housing crisis, the New York City Planning Commission is currently proposing a series of zoning changes, including Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) and Zoning for Quality  and Affordability (ZQA), for potential application in communities across the city. One neighborhood targeted for significant redevelopment is the East New York/Cypress Hill area of Brooklyn. While many Community Boards have already expressed a variety of concerns about the proposed rezonings, the ultimate question comes down to this: does the proposal help or hurt the existing affordability crisis — in East New York and across the five boroughs? (1)

The analysis concludes that “the City’s own data shows that the current plan could inadvertently displace tens of thousands of families in East New York, the vast majority of whom will be unable to afford the relatively small number of new units that will be built.” (1)

In place of the Mayor’s plan, the Comptroller proposes the following principles, among others:

  • target density to sites primed for affordable housing
  • ensure affordability for existing, low-income residents

While the Comptroller is right to highlight the impact of zoning changes on existing residents, his principles do not seem to lead to a better result for a city starved of new housing. Targeting density to sites primed for affordable housing will result in many fewer housing units because it applies to far fewer parcels. Ensuring affordability for existing, low-income residents will mean that subsidy dollars will have to be concentrated on fewer units of affordable housing.

This debate between the Mayor and the Comptroller highlights two key issues. First, every plan to increase affordable housing has winners and losers. Second, affordable housing policies almost always have to choose between providing moderate subsidies to many units or deep subsidies to fewer units. While the Comptroller’s analysis highlights those tensions in the Mayor’s plan, it does not acknowledge them within its own. There are no easy answers here and those who are truly committed to increasing the supply of affordable housing in NYC must make sure not to let the perfect become the enemy of the good.

NINYBY

Posted on by

human-592734_1920

A propos of yesterday’s post on the great paradox of housing policy — people say that they want restrictive land use policies which limit the construction of new housing at the same time that they say that they want more affordable housing in their communities — I present Exhibit 1: Votes by Community Boards Running Strongly Against de Blasio Affordable Housing Proposals. This document provides evidence that people are strongly opposed to affordable housing in their own communities while bemoaning the lack of affordable housing in nearby communities. This state of affairs is so extreme that it deserves its own acronym, Not in New Yorkers Backyards, or NINYBY.

This document was produced by New York Law School’s CityLand periodical and it discusses a

comprehensive chart tracking every vote taken by community boards citywide on the ZQA and MIH text amendments. On September 21, 2015, the City Planning Commission referred for public review the Zoning for Quality and Affordability (ZQA) and Mandatory Inclusionary Housing (MIH) citywide text amendments. Since the public review process has begun, community boards across the city have met to discuss and vote on each of the two proposals. All 59 New York City Community Boards have until November 30th to vote on two citywide text amendments.

CityLand has created a comprehensive citywide chart that is tracking every community board action taken on ZQA and MIH.

*     *     *

Thus far, an overwhelming number of community boards have voted against both of these proposals, with MIH doing marginally better than ZQA. Within the boards themselves, the votes have been lopsided, with several recording unanimous votes against. Most Boards have backed up the votes with statements expressing their reasons for opposition. Some Boards that approved the measures included stipulations to the Yes votes.

New York City is never going to even begin to address its affordable housing issue if it does not implement policies like these proposed by the de Blasio Administration. Those who oppose these policies should at least admit that much is true.

Promoting Opportunity with Development

Posted on by

"ArlingtonTODimage3" by This image was altered by Thesmothete with additional graphical elements to indicate the location of transit stations and the extent of development around them. - Derivative of :Image:ArlingtonRb aerial.jpg. Licensed under Public Domain via Commons - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ArlingtonTODimage3.jpg#/media/File:ArlingtonTODimage3.jpg

Enterprise Community Partners have posted Promoting Opportunity Through Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (eTOD): Barriers to Success and Best Practices for Implementation. It opens,

Development patterns directly relate to a community’s strength. Individual families, the local economy, municipal governments and the environment all benefit when well-located housing, jobs and other necessary resources are connected by efficient transportation and infrastructure networks. Equitable transit-oriented development (eTOD) is an important approach to facilitating these connections. This paper defines eTOD as compact, often mixed-use development with multi-modal access to jobs, neighborhood-serving stores and other amenities that also serves the needs of low- and moderate-income people. The preservation and creation of dedicated affordable housing is a primary approach to eTOD, which can ensure that high-opportunity neighborhoods are open to people from all walks of life. eTOD supports the achievement of multiple cross-sector goals, including regional economic growth, enhanced mobility and access, efficient municipal and transportation network operations, improved public health, and decreased cost of living.

Yet it is sometimes difficult for planning agencies, local governments, transit agencies, housing organizations, private developers, and other institutions that influence development to act in concert to overcome barriers to eTOD. Each stakeholder has a unique mission with disparate goals and compliance burdens and must comply with complex and sometimes contradictory rules and regulations. However, improving coordination between these sectors can shift a potentially adversarial relationship into a symbiotic partnership. As the public resources that support transportation and infrastructure networks and housing affordability remain threatened, such efficient coordination is an especially important goal. (5, references omitted)

eTOD has a lot going for it: it’s environmentally responsible, it’s socially responsible, it can promote nice development. It is a shame that it is so hard to pull off. It would be great if HUD could take the lead in promoting eTOD, perhaps in tandem with its recent fair housing initiatives.