Fair Share Housing for Managed Growth

The Mt. Laurel decision represents the culmination of judicial thinking in exclusionary zoning type litigation. Implicit in decisions striking down local land use controls found to be “exclusionary” in nature has been the notion that a community has a legal duty to accept a “fair share” of the housing needs of the region. Fair share housing now begins to take on some substance with the New Jersey court's decision. Similar language on responsibilities for regional needs may be found in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court decisions in Kit-Mar and Girsh, and in the federal district court's opinion in Petaluma.     

What's the Next Step after Mt. Laurel?

Since its beginnings, zoning has been at its core a tool for achieving exclusionary objectives. Judge Westenhaver, who wrote the lower court decision in Ambler Realty Co. u. Village of Euclid, 297 Fed. 307, 316 (N.D. Ohio 1924) invalidating the village's zoning ordinance, observed that its purpose “is really to regulate the mode of Living of persons who may here-after inhabit [the village]. In the last analysis, the result to be accomplished is to classify the population and segregate them according to their income or station in life.” In reversing his decision, Justice Sutherland classified apartments as “mere parasites … which would deprive children of the privilege of quiet and open spaces for play, enjoyed by those in more favored localities,” In effect, he held that the state's police power could be used to create different levels of health, safety and genera1 welfare for different classes of people. One level was adequate for the poor and another level could be enforced at the behest of the rich who could afford to buy homes in single-family, low-density districts. Even Justice Douglas, a most unlikely bedmate for Justice Sutherland, reflected the same attitude when he wrote recently.     

Mt. Laurel: A View from the Bridge

Across the Delaware River from the “region” which the New Jersey Supreme court appears to suggest should be the planning base for Mt. Laurel Township's land use decisions lies the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania which has been having some severe land use pangs of its own. Long before even the initiation of the Mt. Laurel litigation, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court had begun to decide “exclusionary zoning” cases. And it has continued, intermittently, ever since its National Land ¹ decision in 1965 to admonish municipalities that they must not commit exclusionary² zoning. Thus, the court held a 4 acre minimum lot size exclusionary and then, five years later, held a 2 acre minimum lot size similarily invalid³.     

Letters to the Editor

While many basked in the euphoric rays emanating from the New Jersey state court Mt. Laurel decision, commentators and litigators in the land use field were tempering their sentiments with the knowledge of the U.S. Supereme Court's impending consideration of a primary federal land use challenge in Warth v. Seldin. The Court's 5-4 decision, affirming a federal appeals court'ss affirmance of the dismissal of an exclusionary zoning challenge by various individuals and groups, was predicated on the elusive concept of “standing.” If a sufficient case or controversy existed, according to the Court, or if the various classes of plaintiffs alleged a sufficiently personal stake in the outcome of challenge, their right to challenge Penfield's zoning could be established. In Warth the majority took a restrictive view and, on a one by one basis, denied standing to each of the plaintiffs.     

Lowering the Bar: Privileged Court Filings as Substitutes for Press Releases in the Court of Public Opinion

In the civil lawsuit against Kobe Bryant for sexual assault, the judge admonished lawyers for engaging in “public relations litigation”—the use of pleadings to attract media attention and try cases in the court of public opinion. This article examines the legal ramifications of such practices and the doctrines of law that encourage some lawyers and litigants to use pleadings as a form of press release. These include the law of republication and the fair report and judicial privileges as well as the power of judges to gag trial participants. The article concludes that courts have adequate tools to control such practices, and lawyers and public relations professionals can responsibly use court documents to communicate with the public, so long as they do not abuse the judicial process.     

DAMAGES FOR LOST AMENITIES: FOR A FOOT,A FEELING OR A FUNCTION?

“The rational principles upon which damages … are to be assessed … tend … to be obscured by familiar phrases which lawyers use but seldom pause to analyse.” (Diplock L.J. in Wise v. Kay).     

“It's Just Black,White, or Hispanic”: An Observational Study of Racializing Moves in California's Segregated Prison Reception Centers

This article takes as its launching point a 2005 U. S. Supreme Court case, Johnson v. California (543 U.S. 499), which ruled that the California Department of Corrections' unwritten practice of racially segregating inmates in prison reception centers is to be reviewed under the highest level of constitutional review, strict scrutiny. Relying on observational data from two California prison reception centers, this research is grounded in an interactionist perspective and influenced by Smith's work on “institutional ethnography.” I examine how racialization occurs in carceral settings, arguing that officers and inmates collaborate to arrive at a “negotiated settlement” regarding housing decisions. They do so working together (but not always in agreement) to shape how an inmate is categorized in terms of ‘race’/ethnicity and gang/group affiliation, within a framework established by official Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation paperwork and related institutional understandings of housing needs. The findings demonstrate that administrators, officers, and inmates alike have influence over the process by which people are categorized and ‘race’ is produced, even as they derive their power from different sources and are both enabled and constrained by the relationship between them. I conclude that California prisons are, as Wacquant has put it, “the main machine for ‘race making’” (2005:128), and that the fuel for that machine—a series of patterned, negotiated settlements—happens in real time, “on the ground,” and with important consequences for inmates, officers, and administrators.     

Mixed-Use Zoning: The N.Y.C. Experience

New York City's original mixed-use zoning proposal was part of an “infill zoning” program, intended to allow housing development legally in nonresidentially zoned areas where such development was otherwise feasible. “Infill zoning” was an attempt to encourage housing construction in small areas in which inflexible application of the existing zoning with respect to uses, side yards, or whatever else would discourage or even disallow it. For example, along with the provision for residences in manufacturing zones, it provided for construction “infilling” between rowhouses on lots which did not meet existing minimum sue requirements. A booklet issued by the city planning commission stated the objectives of the mixed-use provisions:     

Council of the Chamber of Attorneys of the City of Moscow Disciplinary Proceedings Against Attorney Sh. [Summer 2008]

[Main accusation: showing disrespect for the court.—Eds.]

Being an independent professional adviser on legal questions, an attorney may not be held liable in any way . . . for an opinion expressed by him while carrying on work as an attorney, unless he has been found guilty of a criminal act (inaction) by a court verdict that has entered into legal force.

… According to general principles of jurisprudence in the Russian Federation, and also generally accepted norms of morality (interpersonal intercourse), the legislator presumes constructive cooperation among professional participants in criminal court proceedings, with each of them performing the procedural function assigned to him by law.     

Land Use Litigation and Low-Income Housing: Mandating Regional Fair Share Plans

With its opinion in Mt. Laurel the New Jersey Supreme Court has written a new chapter in the law of exclusionary zoning and land use regulation. The carefully reasoned and innovative opinion may even prove to be the Magna Carta of suburban low- and moderate-income housing opportunity.     

法院“人财物”问题研究——以法院审判权的独立行使为视角

我国之所以出现法院对地方政府的依赖以及地方政府对法院审判权的不当干预现象,根本原因在于目前法院的"人财物"管理方式存在制度性缺陷,即法院行政化的人事制度、依赖政府财政拨款的经费保障制度与现代审判权的运行规律存有内在冲突。它"后台"式地消解着法院的独立性,必须建立以符合法官职业特性和审判权运行规律的"人财物"管理制度,这是审判权独立运行的基石。     

民事诉讼专家辅助人的功能实现——以医疗损害责任纠纷案件展开

2012年《民事诉讼法》规定了专家辅助人出庭的两个功能,但实务中该两个功能的实现并不充分.在此背景下,借医疗损害责任纠纷案件,探求专家辅助人功能适用中的现状,尤其是案涉专门性问题无法委托鉴定时,如何借力专家辅助人的第二功能而解决该专门性问题.分析发现,法院对专家辅助人意见的采用过于依赖专家辅助人的站位或资历,且专家辅助...     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions”are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions”are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

Abstract

“Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of recent federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.     

Judicial Decisions

“Judicial Decisions” are abstracts of federal and state court decisions addressing issues of importance to the land use lawyer and planner, such as zoning, inverse condemnation, growth management, signs and billboards, vested rights, and many more.