3 ms·
> We argue that exclusionary zoning—the imposition of restrictions on the amount and types of housing that property owners are allowed to build— is unconstituti
by bell-cot 2y ago
> We argue that exclusionary zoning—the imposition of restrictions on the amount and types of housing that property owners are allowed to build— is unconstitutional because it violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment. ...
Haven't the courts already repealed the 5th Amendment, with stuff like Civil Asset Forfeiture?
- pcaharrier 2y agoHeh and also oof. That being said, no, I don't think anyone thinks that the 5th Amendment is completely a dead letter . . . yet.
- maxwell 2y agoWhatever the case federally, States can ban asset forfeiture. Mine became the fourth to do so in 2021: https://reason.com/2021/07/14/maine-becomes-4th-state-to-repeal-civil-asset-forfeiture https://reason.com/2021/07/14/maine-becomes-4th-state-to-rep... Same with exclusionary zoning. State laws can strike down Euclid. SB 9 in California appears to move in that direction: https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9 https://focus.senate.ca.gov/sb9
- pcaharrier 2y agoThe authors briefly mention SB9: "SB 9, a recent reform enacted in 2021, allows owners of single-family homes to subdivide their property; but a recent court decision held that the provision is illegal under the state’s constitution as applied to California’s 121 charter cities.