4 ms·
This seems like a trojan horse to blow away the EPA and Endangered Species Act entirely.
by throwawaysleep 2y ago
This seems like a trojan horse to blow away the EPA and Endangered Species Act entirely.
- jeffbee 2y ago95% of this article is about the distinction between police powers for health and safety and the broader takings allowed by Euclid.
- function_seven 2y agoEPA's interests in regulating land use are much more squarely in the police powers carveout than the zoning regulations that limit the number of occupants on a residential parcel. If EPA says you can't build a dam or otherwise alter the watershed that overlaps your land, they have a clear rationale for that regulation that goes beyond "protecting the charm and character" of a particular neighborhood. Just overturning the decision that says occupancy density is itself a police power would be narrow enough to ease building restrictions while not blowing the EPA away.
- treis 2y agoEminent domain powers in the US are very broad at this point and almost certainly would include zoning. The question is if the government can do it without compensation. Either way the government can zone land or protect species. The question is if they've gotta pay individual land owners or not.
- barney54 2y agoThis is just wrong as a matter of law. The federal government can only regulate land through the commerce cause--not through police powers to police species.
- marinmania 2y agoI don't think that's a fair reading. I can't think of any instance where the endangered species act would allow housing in some area near wildlife, but only if it didn't have a dividing wall between living spaces. Same with the EPA. Zoning is almost entirely set at the local level.
- m0llusk 2y agoThis article focuses primarily on rules applied to land already designated for residential use.
- CalRobert 2y agoIf it resulted in an end to single family zoning it would probably still be a net win for nature.