• Welcome to the new and improved Building Code Forum. We appreciate you being here and hope that you are getting the information that you need concerning all codes of the building trades. This is a free forum to the public due to the generosity of the Sawhorses, Corporate Supporters and Supporters who have upgraded their accounts. If you would like to have improved access to the forum please upgrade to Sawhorse by first logging in then clicking here: Upgrades

Stew on this.

I to would like not to register with another web site and have to establish a password and longin name.

I understand how HUD can put conditions on projects which they fund or provide some other benefit but it is not clear how they can require changes in local zoning. If you could put the information somewhere that we can understand the issues it would be appreciated.
 
A trick that sometimes work is for the OP to copy and past the first sentence into here, then we can copy and paste it into Google and it will usually come up without registering and paying a fee. But, maybe they have figured out that workaround.
 
Seven50: A HUD Assault on Local Zoning - The Liberty Caucus

Seven50: A HUD Assault on Local Zoning

by Bright Light on SEPTEMBER 8, 2013 in ISSUES, NATIONAL, WATCHDOG

By ROBERT P. ASTORINO

Do you think it is a good idea to give the Department of Housing and Urban Development unchecked power to put an apartment building in your neighborhood? HUD has proposed a new rule that could do just that.

In July, HUD published its long-awaited proposal on “Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing” in the Federal Register. It is a sweeping set of land-use regulations that has attracted little national attention. The agency wants the power to dismantle local zoning so communities have what it considers the right mix of economic, racial and ethnic diversity. A finding of discriminatory behavior, or allegations of discrimination, would no longer be necessary. HUD will supply “nationally uniform data” of what it thinks 1,200 communities should look like.

Local governments will have to “take meaningful actions to further the goals identified.” If they fail to comply, HUD can cut federal funding. Westchester County north of New York City has firsthand experience of what the rest of the nation can expect.

HUD and Westchester are battling over local zoning that arose from a 2009 settlement (signed by my predecessor) to build 750 affordable-housing units in 31 mostly white communities. Westchester is well ahead of schedule in meeting these obligations. Almost 400 units have financing and 124 are already occupied. But HUD isn’t satisfied because it wants to control local zoning and remake communities.

HUD has told Westchester that any limits on the size, type, height and density of buildings are “restrictive practices.” It demands that the county sue its localities over such common zoning regulations, which are not exclusionary by any stretch of the imagination. If HUD can define what constitutes exclusionary practices, then local zoning as it is known today disappears. Apartments, high rises or whatever else the federal government or a developer wants can be built on any block in America.

This is not hyperbole. Consider that HUD’s list of “restrictive practices” includes limits on density even around reservoirs that supply drinking water to New York City’s eight million residents. Who knew ensuring clean water was discriminatory?

HUD’s power grab is based on the mistaken belief that zoning and discrimination are the same. They are not. Zoning restricts what can be built, not who lives there.

In the 1970s, New York’s highest court, in cases known as the Berenson decisions, established rules for what constitutes exclusionary zoning. Westchester’s municipalities either voluntarily or through legal challenges have complied with these judicial rules. Any local zoning code also remains open to legal challenge. There are long-standing legal standards by which local zoning is judged and continually reviewed.

As required by HUD, Westchester County analyzed all 853 local zoning districts in February 2012. It found no evidence of exclusionary practices based on race or ethnicity. The county’s conclusion was supported in a separate analysis by John R. Nolon, an affordable-housing expert at Pace University’s Land Use Law Center.

HUD rejected the findings and cut off $17 million of federal funds to the county. The county prepared seven additional analyses, each one exploring more data as demanded by HUD. But as many times as HUD attempted to move the goal posts, the findings did not change. There is no evidence that zoning requirements on things like building size and height are racially exclusionary.

via Robert Astorino: Washington’s ‘Fair Housing’ Assault on Local Zoning – WSJ.com.
 
I have an analysis that was prepared for our City's Urban Renewal Division, but I haven't had time to look at it. I was told that for us, about $1M in grants that they would lose hangs on this. I'll try to get to it today and see what it is saying.
 
I am still trying to understand exactly what HUD is proposing to do. Fatboy's post suggest that is proposing to make future payments contingent on certain behavior. This is probably legal thus the question is it good policy. The question remains what is HUD proposing not how you perceive it impacting you.
 
What they are doing in a nutshell is dictating zoning Practices based on a preconceived notion of racial discrimination. They are not suburban friendly. In the case of the New York county, they are ignoring the fact there is no discriminatory zoning behavior existing. They are contending that if you don't build to the HUD ideal, you are automatically discriminating. They would like to urbanize the zoning.

Brent
 
MASSDRIVER -- It is important to understand how they are doing this in order to understand the options of the cities and counties. This would likely also impact what options are most effective in pushing back.
 
HUD (the federal government) is witholding money to change local zoning. It seems to me that local and state governments put themselves in this situation by becoming dependent on federal money; which in turn makes them dependent on the feds and therefore must comply; not by law, but by making themselves dependent on the feds financially.
 
I think a far greater threat to peoples rights is the practice of financial discrimination by municipalities. When zoning ordinances restrict the square footage of homes ( example: no single family residence can be less than 1600 square feet) they are denying the rights of working class people to own a home (single family residence). When I was a carpenter in the early 60s; we built many two and three bedroom homes that were from 700 to 1200 square feet (some were even smaller). Every citizen should have the right to buy a new home as long as it meets the requirements of the building code. If you can live in an apartment that is 300 sq. ft., you "should" have the same right to live in your own new single family residence that is less than many of the municipalities zoning restrictions that limit the square footage of any single family residence anywhere within the city limits. This is financial discrimination against the majority of citizens in this country. Uncle Bob
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CA already has laws allowing density bonuses for affordable housing.

CA Codes (gov:65915-65918)

Not every jurisdiction realizes it, but if a developer has an affordable housing project, they are within their rights to build as dense as they can justify without causing significant impact to public safety. If they are denied, they can sue and will win, no matter what the zoning code says.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top