The Managed Growth Trickle-Up Theory

My title is designed to elicit warm vibes from the free marketeers as well as from the public controllers. For when devising programs to relate the interests of the poor and the environment, it is as necessary to seek consensus in order to progress as it is in other contexts². The managed growth trickle-up theory is designed to be a response by local and regional governments to move with alacrity in the provision of racially and economically integrated housing. Surely, now that Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974⁴ is law, localities and regions can no longer blame their segregative practices on bureaucratic HUD bungling. The locus of blame is now not only clearer; failure to integrate housing is also more expensive.     

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.     

Ybarra. Ugh.

The last time the Ninth Circuit decided an exclusionary land use control case, there was no clear-cut victory for either side, the result in Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization v. Union City, 424 F.2d 291, 22 ZD 246 (9th Cir. 1970) being that the Chicano, low-income housing group did not get to use the site it wanted, but the court opined that Union City had to provide some sites somewhere. But in Ybarra v. City of Town of Los Altos Hills, 503 F.2d 250, 26 ZD 426 (9th Cir. 1974) the plaintiff Chicano group lost all.     

Development and validation of videotaped scenarios: a method for targeting specific participant groups

Researchers using scenarios often neglect to validate perceived content and salience of embedded stimuli specifically with intended participants, even when such meaning is integral to the study. For example, sex and aggression stimuli are heavily influenced by culture, so participants may not perceive what researchers intended in sexual aggression scenarios. Using four studies, the authors describe the method of scenario validation to produce two videos assessing alcohol-related sexual aggression. Both videos are identical except for the presence in one video of antiforce cues that are extremely salient to the young heterosexual men. Focus groups and questionnaires validate these men's perceptions that (a) the woman was sexually interested, (b) the sexual cues were salient, (c) the antiforce cues were salient (antiaggression video only), and (e) these antiforce cues inhibited acceptance of forced sex. Results show the value of carefully selecting and validating content when assessing socially volatile variables and provide a useful template for developing culturally valid scenarios.     

Judicial Review of Local Land-Use Decisions in California

The California courts have a reputation for sustaining local land-use controls where no other state court would do so. The reputation was certainly deserved prior to 1966, when courts still presumed that necessary findings to support a variance had been made and that the findings were properly supported. Prior to that time no appellate court had ever reversed the grant of a variance. This was changed, however, by Cow Hollow Improvement Club v. Dibene, 245 Cal. App. 2d 160;53 Cal Rptr. 610 (1966) and Broadway, Laguna, Vallejo Assoc. v. Board of Permit Appeals, 66 Cal.2d 767, 59 Cal. Rptr. 146,427 P.2d 810 (1967). Thereafter, where the ordinance required specific findings, findings on each of the standards for a variance had to be made and each had to be supported by substantial evidence. This standard was extended to the granting of conditional use permits and other major work of the zoning board of appeals in Stoddard v. Edelman, 4 Cal. App. 3d 544, 84 Cal. Rptr. 443 (1970). Cautious attorneys who recommended that such standards be applied even if not specified in the ordinance were also vindicated recently by Topanga Assoc. for a Scenic Community v. Los Angeles, 113 Cal.Rptr. 836 (1974).     

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.