Friday, January 26, 2007

Eminent domain ... up to the states? ...

   The U.S. Supreme Court denied last week a petition to hear another eminent-domain-for-redevelopment case, this one arising from a taking in Port Chester, N.Y. One response to property-rights frustration is that, as the Court said in Kelo in 2005, eminent domain is largely a state law issue, and states are free to limit localities from exercising their power for redevelopment, or to impose any restriction they like under state law. In fact, most states did respond to Kelo with some sort of statutory limitation on eminent domain for economic reasons. In a sense, then, we can be satisfied that strong public opinion has led to democratically enacted changes in the law.

Americanflag_1    On the other hand, simply passing the constitutional buck to state governments may not be a satisfactory solution in the long run. Once the public furor has died down, "government" - meaning both local and state authorities - has the incentive to give itself broad authority. The "public use" requirement for eminent domain is in effect an individual human right against the power of government, and only the courts can fully vindicate such a right.

January 26, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, January 25, 2007

Discriminating roommates … and a proposal for a change in the Fair Housing Act …

  Does the Fair Housing Act cover online roommate preferences?  The New York Times published this week an opinionated article about online roommate services, many of which contain explicit preferences for a roommate of a particular race, or religion, or sex (which is not automatically Apartment_1 excluded from coverage by the Act!).  At least one Fair Housing Act lawsuit against an online service is pending.  The author suggested that the Act might violate notions of free speech, in that it prohibits “publish”[ing] or “advertis”[ing] a preference on the ground of race, religion, sex, etc., 42 U.S.C. § 3604(c), even though it otherwise excludes from its coverage such discrimination by someone who merely rents out a room (or two or three, but not four) in his or her house, 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(2) (the so-called “Mrs. Murphy” exception).  The article suggested that this situation might amount to prohibiting speech about lawful conduct –- a conclusion that certainly would be troubling under the First Amendment.   

   But here’s a different way of looking at the situation.  The “Mrs. Murphy exception” was included in the Act to protect homeowners who rent out a few rooms (boardinghouses were far more prevalent in 1968 than they are today).  Because of the unappealing (in 1968, at least) specter of federal law coming down on the stereotype of such a boardinghouse owner –- a fictional widow called Mrs. Murphy, who simply didn’t feel comfortable renting to black people –- the law provided an exception for her.  How far should the exception reach?  The limits were designed to try to protect little old Mrs. Murphy but ONLY little old Mrs. Murphy.  The three-other-family limit was created presumably because if a homeowner rents more than three other rooms, this owner looks less like a Mrs. Murphy and a lot more like an apartment landlord.             

    Similarly, if the homeowner “publishes” the rental, the owner isn’t acting like Mrs. Murphy; the owner is acting more like a businessperson.  (Little old Mrs. Murphy would only have put a sign “Room for Rent” on her drafty old house and spread the opening by word of mouth).  This is why “publishing” makes the discrimination unlawful.  It’s NOT that it’s speech about conduct that’s lawful.  The reason for the rule is that if you publish, the law presumes that you’re not the kind of little old boardinghouse owner upon whom the law grants sympathy and the Mrs. Murphy exception.

   This having been said, why shouldn’t there be an exception for publishing roommate preferences?  I suggest that the Mrs. Murphy boardinghouse exception be abolished (a 70-year-old Mrs. Murphy today has lived most of her life in a world with the Fair Housing Act) and replaced with an exception that allows anyone –- fee simple owner or renter –- to be exempted from the Act if they rent to only ONE other person.  They would be exempted whether or not they “publish” their preference (a far more routine occurrence in the day of the Internet than it was in 1968, of course).  Do I approve of such discrimination in finding a roommate?  No.  But just as law wisely does not make it unlawful to discriminate in whom one invites to lunch, the limited interest in personal privacy should exclude from the Fair Housing Act the choosing of a sole roommate, even for the most distasteful reasons.         

January 25, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, January 22, 2007

Residences downtown … in fact, too many! …

[“Downtown Week,” extended]

  Downtown residences!  Downtown residences!  This is the cry of progressive urban land use policy.  To fight sprawl, support city finances, encourage public transportation, and foster communitarianism, cities across the United States are trying to get more housing built downtown.

   Which North American city has been the most successful in increasing both the supply of and demand for multi-unit downtown residences?  It’s likely Vancouver, that dynamic metropolis on Canada’s West Coast.  To walk around downtown Vancouver at 10:30 a.m. on a weekday is unlike the experience in almost any American city at such an hour; with much of the downtown converted into high-rise residences, the city center is bustling with people who live directly above small shops, offices, and restaurants.  It feels so … European, perhaps, but also Asian, as the west coast city holds a large and growing Chinese population.  It seems like an urbanist’s dream of a modern city in 2100.

Vancouverresidences    But the success of Vancouver’s “living first” policy, adopted in the 1980s, is now having unexpected drawbacks.  With so much space devoted to housing, businesses in the booming city are finding it difficult to find enough office space.  With firms complaining and threatening to move to suburbs or elsewhere, Vancouver is considering raising height restrictions and is imposing new commercial space requirements on developers who otherwise would be building mostly residences.  This is the opposite, of course, of the policies in many residence-thin cities of the United States.  Now that Vancouver’s downtown-residence policy has proven to be so successful, the city should consider allowing free-market forces to determine much of downtown land use in the near future. 

January 22, 2007 | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)