4 ms·

>> The federal government has the authority to invalidate local city council ordinances - for instance the FCC invalidated Chicago rules around satellite dishes

>> The federal government has the authority to invalidate local city council ordinances - for instance the FCC invalidated Chicago rules around satellite dishes The fact that the federal government had the authority to invalidate a specific local ordinance does not mean that the federal government has the authority to invalidate any local ordinance. >> The housing market is interstate commerce The housing market is not interstate commerce. There may have been past Supreme Courts that inappropriately used the interstate commerce clause (for example the ruling that a farmer growing wheat on his farm in order to feed his cattle was interstate commerce), but the current Supreme Court will not inappropriately use the interstate commerce clause. Under the current Court, only interstate commerce will be considered as interstate commerce. >> Houston has no zoning rules It has ordinances, deed restrictions, and building codes instead. >> and is one of the most affordable major metros in the US The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction.

arcticbull 3y ago
> The housing market is not interstate commerce. sigh >> Congress in fact relied on the Commerce Clause, together with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as a principal basis for the original enactment, in 1968, of the Fair Housing Act. The legislative history of the original Act contains many references by its sponsors and supporters to both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for its enactment. >> The Attorney General testified that "the housing business is substantially interstate and subject to the commerce clause" because of the interstate movement of building materials, mortgage funds, and advertising, as well as the interstate movement of workers and their families. I know the linked article is an amicus brief - but it was filed by the DOJ so it is the position of the United States. I suppose it could be re-litigated - the lord only knows with this Supreme Court - but I don't think it's at all unfair for me to rely on this thesis. The Federal Government has the power to regulate housing under the Commerce Clause. The whole reason the Fair Housing Act is binding is that housing is interstate commerce. Fundamentally if you believe the Fair Housing Act is enforceable, then you believe that housing is interstate commerce, which in turn means that you must agree the Federal Government can regulate housing. I'm not saying you have to like it or support it, just that it's pretty clearly established precedent. Respectfully, I will follow the opinion of the DOJ here. > The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction. Yes that's what happens when supply meets or exceeds demand. It approaches the cost of construction. When demand exceeds supply prices tend to the highest level the market will bear. That's the crux of my argument. You know that for instance the SF Bay Area's average population density is 600 people per square mile. We're not exactly short of land out here. This isn't Singapore. And you know you can just build up, right, when not forbidden by onerous zoning rules? [1] https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-cases-documents-192 https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-ca...

arcticbull 3y ago

> The housing market is not interstate commerce. sigh >> Congress in fact relied on the Commerce Clause, together with the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments, as a principal basis for the original enactment, in 1968, of the Fair Housing Act. The legislative history of the original Act contains many references by its sponsors and supporters to both the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment as authority for its enactment. >> The Attorney General testified that "the housing business is substantially interstate and subject to the commerce clause" because of the interstate movement of building materials, mortgage funds, and advertising, as well as the interstate movement of workers and their families. I know the linked article is an amicus brief - but it was filed by the DOJ so it is the position of the United States. I suppose it could be re-litigated - the lord only knows with this Supreme Court - but I don't think it's at all unfair for me to rely on this thesis. The Federal Government has the power to regulate housing under the Commerce Clause. The whole reason the Fair Housing Act is binding is that housing is interstate commerce. Fundamentally if you believe the Fair Housing Act is enforceable, then you believe that housing is interstate commerce, which in turn means that you must agree the Federal Government can regulate housing. I'm not saying you have to like it or support it, just that it's pretty clearly established precedent. Respectfully, I will follow the opinion of the DOJ here. > The Houston metro area is 10,000 square miles of mostly flat land, with plenty more buildable land bordering the metro area. The cost of a house in that scenario is going to be close to the cost of construction. Yes that's what happens when supply meets or exceeds demand. It approaches the cost of construction. When demand exceeds supply prices tend to the highest level the market will bear. That's the crux of my argument. You know that for instance the SF Bay Area's average population density is 600 people per square mile. We're not exactly short of land out here. This isn't Singapore. And you know you can just build up, right, when not forbidden by onerous zoning rules? [1] https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-cases-documents-192 https://www.justice.gov/crt/housing-and-civil-enforcement-ca...