The U.S. Supreme Court's exactions ruling left a lot of things up in the air. Most important: Does California's typical "fair share" methodology for general plan-level exactions meet the court's "rough proportionality" rule?
Recent rulings from the high-profile cities of Berkeley and Beverly Hills got a lot of publicity. But less publicized settlement agreements from Davis and Clovis show just how scared cities are getting about housing litigation.
The state's action on housing has focused on making entitlements easier to get. But housing production hasn't gone up. Maybe there aren't enough developers and planners left in the state to get the job done.
They could simply box in California cities on nexus and proportionality. Or, led by Thomas and Alito, they could throw the bomb and say development is a right and not a privilege
After a review, HCD has told San Francisco it must start reforming its entitlement process by Thanksgiving or else. Will the state start investigating other cities' entitlement processes as well?
Some important bills passed this year. But unless the Legislature is willing to take on CEQA directly, there may not be a whole lot more to do on the land use front to encourage more housing production.
Three recent cases show how far the law can be stretched -- and how project opponents often sue for reasons that have nothing to do with that they're really upset about.
One camp says CEQA litigation stifles housing production and reinforces the status quo. The other camps says CEQA litigation isn't all that frequent and leads to better projects. But what if they're both right?
Davis situation highlights the growing tension between local ballot measures requiring voter approval and the Housing Accountability Act's restrictions on project denial.
History would suggest that the answer is no. It's more likely that the Legislature will punch a couple of holes in the law and plaintiffs' lawyers will continue to figure out how to get around the holes.
Still, some jurists still focus on expanding the law, creating a kind of schism in the appellate courts. Will the Legislature step in to clarify? Not likely.
AB 2097 was celebrated as a pro-housing victory. But debate over the bill highlighted the growing gap between those who believe the market can solve the housing problem and those who don't.
