INTERSTATE METRO-REGIONAL RESPONSES TO EXCLUSIONARY ZONING

Allocation of decision-making power to the local metropolitan level has many benefits. In some respects, local decentralized control is the essence of a participatory democracy and represents the embodiment of the American way of life. However, municipal control of land use paradoxically results in...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Real property, probate and trust journal probate and trust journal, 1992-04, Vol.27 (1), p.49-142
Main Author: Galowitz, Stephen David
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Exclusionary zoning
Government
Housing
Interstate
Jurisdiction
Land use
Local government
Municipalities
Probate law
Property trusts
Real property
State court decisions
Use taxes
Zoning
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Allocation of decision-making power to the local metropolitan level has many benefits. In some respects, local decentralized control is the essence of a participatory democracy and represents the embodiment of the American way of life. However, municipal control of land use paradoxically results in the establishment of anti-American exclusionary zoning policies. In the past 2 decades, numerous states have attempted to prevent exclusion and its deleterious effects. Statewide responses are often insufficient because many metro-regions affected by exclusionary zoning straddle state borders. Federal intervention is administratively unworkable and overbroad. Interstate compacts and informal cooperation pose tremendous problems of leverage, because states will not voluntarily negotiate agreements that are contrary to their self-interest. Without multisubject agreements, commuter taxes, and federal court enforcement of intergovernmental property rights or fair share requirements, interlocal agreements are highly unlikely.
ISSN:0034-0855
2159-4538
1540-8469
2329-6127