Land Use Prof Blog

Beginning this week, Land Use Prof Blog is hosting a series of posts that are excerpts from book chapters in the recently released Contemporary Issues in Climate Change Law and Policy: Essays Inspired by the IPCC. The book was co-edited by Robin Kundis Craig (Utah) and me. The posts will progress in the order of the book's chapters. We begin today with an excerpt from Prof. Craig's chapter, "Climate Change, Sustainable Development, and the IPCC’s Fifth Assessment Report." Read Prof. Craig's entire chapter here.

Buy the book here.

In this excerpt, Prof. Craig argues that there are three models of sustainable development that have emerged in relationship to environmental law. Citations are omitted.

Sustainable development emerged at about the same time as scientists were becoming convinced that climate change was occurring and that humans had something to do with it. While the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) dates the concept of sustainable development to its 1969 mandate and the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm), the World Commission on Environment and Development’s (also known as the Brundtland Commission’s) 1987 report, Our Common Future, is generally credited with launching sustainable development as an international governance goal. Indeed, that report provided the most common definition of sustainable development: “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” Sustainable development goals were further operationalized in 1992 at the “Earth Summit” in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, particularly in Agenda 21. Sustainable development also became one of the United Nations’ eight Millennium Development Goals in 2000.

Sustainable development has been defined and redefined a number of times in a number of ways. Literally, as sustainable development textbook author Jennifer Elliott has noted, “sustainable development refers to maintaining development over time." More importantly, pursuers of sustainable development make different assumptions about the relationship between human beings and the environment. Such differing assumptions are evident in the three models of sustainable development—the “three pillars” model, the “interlocking circles” model, and the “nested circles” model—all three of which describe the relationships among society and social welfare, the environment, and economic development.

The three pillars model (Figure 1) “confirm[s] the need to consider the social, ecological and economic arenas together and equally” to achieve sustainable development, but it does not clearly depict the interconnections among the three pillars. In particular, the three pillars model does not acknowledge that economic development and social well-being, as well as sustainable development, depend upon well-functioning ecosystems that can continue to deliver goods and services. In other words, the three pillars model suggests that social and economic systems (or socioeconomic systems) can exist and function independently of the environment, when in fact all social and economic systems are socio-ecological systems.

This conceptual view of the social and economic pillars as independent helps to explain the difference between “weak” and “strong” sustainability. “Weak” interpretations of sustainable development view human and physical capital as adequate substitutes for natural capital in the environment in terms of “the total capital stock passed onto the next generation. . . .” In this view, for example, an increase in roads might be deemed an adequate substitute for loss of wetlands in terms of resources left to the next generation. Weak sustainability perspectives thus underplay the ultimate dependence of all human societies and economies on functional ecosystems. In contrast, “[s]trong sustainability demands the protection of critical natural capital because once lost, these assets are lost forever, and they cannot be recreated.” “Critical natural capital” are the natural resources “required for survival,” including both functional resources such as the ozone layer and valued resources such as rare species or species helpful to medical care.

Unlike the three pillars model, the interlocking circles model of sustainable development (Figure 2) more clearly communicates “the need to integrate thinking and action in sustainable development across traditional disciplinary boundaries and established policy-making departments. . . .” Indeed, the IUCN, in its Programme for 2005–2008, adopted “the interlocking circles model to demonstrate that the three objectives need to be better integrated, with action to redress the balance between dimensions of sustainability. . . .”[16] The middle area of overlap represents the area in which the goals of all three spheres are all maximized—i.e., “the possibility of mutually supportive (‘win-win-win’) gains” in all three areas (economic, social, and environmental) simultaneously. Moreover, “[t]he small area of overlap relative to the whole sphere portrays the unsustainable nature of much activity, but also opens the idea of the potential to expand this area of positive overlap.”

this model supports understandings that achieving sustainable development in practice regularly involves trade-offs across the different spheres; that difficult choices have to be made at particular points in time and at particular scales as to what is being pursued and how; that certain goals can be compromised in the achievement of others; and that any action will carry unequal impacts for particular interests and for groups of people. An important but often overlooked aspect of the overlapping spheres model is the concept of tradeoffs. Specifically, the small area in the center representing true sustainable development is the product of tradeoffs among the three areas. As such,

this model supports understandings that achieving sustainable development in practice regularly involves trade-offs across the different spheres; that difficult choices have to be made at particular points in time and at particular scales as to what is being pursued and how; that certain goals can be compromised in the achievement of others; and that any action will carry unequal impacts for particular interests and for groups of people.

The interlocking circles model thus also supports the idea that sustainable development requires systems thinking—that is, an approach that acknowledges that society, economic development, and the environment exist as complex interactions rather than isolated arenas. The IUCN, for example, has identified “two fundamental issues” for sustainable development, “the problem of environmental degradation that so commonly accompanies economic growth, and yet the need for such growth to alleviate poverty.”

However, like the three pillars model, the interlocking circles model treats the three areas of focus as equal and somewhat commensurable—i.e., it suggests no limits on humans’ ability to trade improvements in one sphere (say, economic development) for degradations in another (say, the environment). As such, the interlocking spheres model, like the three pillars model, can support a weak sustainability approach that undermines the environmental “bottom line” of human existence.

Environmental limits do emerge, however, in the third model of sustainable development, the nested circles model (Figure 3). In this model, “the spheres of economy and society are shown as embedded in a wider circle of ecology,” portraying “an understanding of environmental limits setting boundaries within which a sustainable society and economy must be sought.” Furthermore, this model acknowledges that “activities that damage the functioning of natural systems ultimately weaken the basis of human existence itself.” Thus, this model underscores that the societal and economic goals within sustainable development ultimately depend on a rich and well-functioning environment that supplies at the very least critical natural capital and preferably more extensive ecosystem goods and services.

May 30, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

Obama signs executive order requiring federal buildings in the WUI to meet wildfire-preparedness standards

With wildfire season just around the corner, President Obama executive order last week drew new attention to codes that can significantly reduce the effects of wildfire on buildings in the wildland-urban interface. Here is the the order:

WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE FEDERAL RISK MITIGATION

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, and to improve the Nation's resilience to wildfire, I hereby direct the following:

Section 1. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to strengthen the security and resilience of the Nation against the impacts of wildfire. The annual estimates on structure loss due to wildfire have increased dramatically over the past six decades as a result of multi-year drought conditions in combination with accumulated fuel loads, growing populations residing in the wildland-urban interface, and associated increases in the exposure of built environments. As such, we must continue to ensure our Nation is resilient to wildfire in order to promote public safety, economic strength, and national security.

The Federal Government must continue to take proactive steps to enhance the resilience of buildings that are owned by the Federal Government and are located on Federal land. Each executive department and agency (agency) responsible for implementing this order shall seek to enhance the resilience of its buildings when making investment decisions to ensure continued performance of essential functions and to reduce risks to its buildings' occupants in the event of a wildfire.

Sec. 2. Codes and Concurrent Requirements. (a) Commencing within 90 days of the completion of the implementing guidelines as described in section 3(b)(i) of this order, each agency shall ensure that every new Federal building above 5,000 gross square feet on Federal land within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk for which the agency has not completed design is in compliance with the 2015 edition of the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code (IWUIC) promulgated by the International Code Council (ICC), or an equivalent code, consistent with the provisions of and to the extent required by 40 U.S.C. 3312. When the ICC releases a new version of the IWUIC, a determination shall be made whether the new version is a nationally recognized code for the purposes of 40 U.S.C. 3312(b), as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 2 years after the release of the new version. If a determination is made that a new version is a nationally recognized code, agencies shall ensure that any Federal building covered by this section for which the agency has not completed design is in compliance with that new version, or an equivalent code, consistent with the provisions of and to the extent required by 40 U.S.C. 3312.

(b) Commencing within 90 days of the completion of the implementing guidelines as described in section 3(b)(i) of this order, each agency responsible for the alteration of an existing Federal building above 5,000 gross square feet on Federal land within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk for which the agency has not completed design shall ensure that the alteration is effectuated in compliance with the IWUIC, or an equivalent code, consistent with the provisions of and to the extent required by 40 U.S.C. 3312. When the ICC releases a new version of the IWUIC, a determination shall be made whether the new version is a nationally recognized code for the purposes of 40 U.S.C. 3312(b), as expeditiously as practicable, but not later than 2 years after the release of the new version. If a determination is made that a new version is a nationally recognized code, agencies shall ensure that any Federal building covered by this section for which the agency has not completed design is in compliance with that new version, or an equivalent code, consistent with the provisions of and to the extent required by 40 U.S.C. 3312.

(c) Each agency that owns an existing Federal building above 5,000 gross square feet on Federal land within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk is strongly encouraged to ensure that such existing buildings are in compliance with the IWUIC, or an equivalent code.

(d) The heads of agencies whose activities are covered by sections 2(a) and 2(b) of this order shall complete a wildfire risk assessment of their existing Federal buildings above 5,000 gross square feet within the wildland-urban interface and are strongly encouraged to consider creating and maintaining a defensible space in compliance with the IWUIC, or an equivalent code, for each of those buildings they determine to be at highest risk.

(e) Each agency that leases space in a building to be constructed for the predominant use of an agency above 5,000 rentable square feet in the wildland-urban interface in an area of greater than moderate wildfire risk is strongly encouraged to ensure that the building is designed and constructed in accord with the IWUIC, or an equivalent code.

(f) Each agency assisting in the financing, through Federal grants or loans, or guaranteeing the financing, through loan or mortgage insurance premiums, of a newly constructed building or of an alteration of an existing building above 5,000 gross square feet within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk shall consider updating its procedures for providing the assistance to be consistent with sections 2(a) and 2(b) of this order, to ensure appropriate consideration of wildfire-resistant design and construction.

(g) To the extent permitted by law, the heads of all agencies may:

(i) require higher performance levels than exist in the codes described in section 2(a) of this order;

(ii) apply the requirements within section 2(a) of this order to new buildings less than 5,000 gross square feet on Federal land within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk; and

(iii) apply the requirements within section 2(b) of this order to existing buildings less than 5,000 gross square feet on Federal land within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk.

(h) When calculating whether a building is at moderate or greater wildfire risk, agencies should act in accordance with the methods described in the 2015 edition of the IWUIC, or any subsequent version that is determined to be a nationally recognized code for the purposes of 40 U.S.C. 3312(b), or an equivalent code, or in accordance with an equivalent method.

(i) Each building constructed or altered in accordance with section 2(a) or (b) of this order shall comply with the IWUIC, or an equivalent code, only to the maximum extent feasible as determined by the head of an agency.

Sec. 3. Agency Responsibilities. (a) The heads of all agencies that own Federal buildings above 5,000 gross square feet on Federal land within the wildland-urban interface at moderate or greater wildfire risk shall determine the appropriate process within their respective agencies to ensure compliance with this order.

(b) The Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) shall:

(i) create implementing guidelines to advise and assist agency compliance with the code requirements within 240 days of the date of this order;

(ii) provide assistance to the agencies in interpreting the implementing guidelines.

(c) When determining whether buildings are located within the wildland-urban interface, agencies shall use the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service's, "The 2010 Wildland-Urban Interface of the Conterminous United States," or an equivalent tool. The Secretary of Agriculture shall provide assistance to the agencies in determining whether buildings are located within the wildland-urban interface.

(d) The heads of agencies whose activities are covered by sections 2(a) and 2(b) of this order shall submit a report once every 2 years to the Chair of the MitFLG on their progress in implementing the order, commencing 2 years from the date of this order.

Sec. 4. Definition. As used in this order, "building" means a constructed asset that is enclosed with walls and a roof that provides space for agencies to perform activities or store materials as well as provides spaces for people to live or work.

Sec. 5. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law, including the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order applies only to buildings within the United States and its territories and possessions.

(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

BARACK OBAMA

THE WHITE HOUSE,
May 18, 2016.

May 24, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 23, 2016

After the Colorado Supreme Court fracking decisions, local governments try new ways to fight on

As I noted in an earlier post, the two Colorado fracking decisions that came down this month seem to provide local governments some wiggle room for regulating fracking. The decisions seem to indicate that local governments cannot do a ban, and that a five-year moratorium is more like a prohibited ban than a permitted local land use control. So, what about a two-year moratorium? Or a six-month moratorium? Or a one year moratorium where you employ some experts to do studies? This seems to be the new frontier in Colorado. From NGI Shale Daily (via Jamie Baker Roskie):

Reacting to a recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling, Boulder County commissioners on Thursday imposed a new six-month moratorium on hydraulic fracturing (fracking) after lifting a four-year prohibition that had been in place for unincorporated portions of the county. The ban will last through Nov. 18.

On May 2, Colorado's high court struck down a ban and moratorium on fracking by the cities of Longmont and Fort Collins, respectively, siding with the oil/natural gas industry and affirming that the local government actions were preempted by state law making them invalid and unenforceable (see Shale Daily, May 3).

Boulder County elected officials lifted their "timeout" on accepting and processing new oil/gas development applications, which was to be effective through July 1, 2018, replacing it with the six-month ban, which they said was needed to take public comments and adopt updates to the county's land-use and environmental regulations covering oil/gas operations.

Officials said their actions were prompted by the state Supreme Court ruling against local bans. The county's ban goes back to 2012 and has been extended several times (see Shale Daily, June 21, 2013).

Colorado Oil and Gas Association CEO Dan Haley was somewhat skeptical about the county action, noting “only Boulder County ends a moratorium by creating a brand new one; [it] has had years to consider new rules and regulations, but has failed to do so.

“We will watch carefully to see if the county is sincere in enacting oil/gas regulations within the context of the recent Supreme Court ruling, or if this is just a ploy to extend their previous moratorium and it's business as usual.” Haley, said he encourages the county to work with the state and industry as it drafts new and updated land-use regulations and holds public hearings before their final adoption.

Rest of the story here.

May 23, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

UN releases "Zero Draft of the New Urban Agenda" in anticipation of Habitat III

Earlier this month, in anticipation of UN Habitat III in Quito, Ecuador this coming October, the "Zero Draft of the New Urban Agenda" was released. It is a good summary document of major issues facing cities around the world and worth a look.

May 23, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Zoning’s Centennial, Part 20: Land Use Law and Climate Change Management: A Series by John R. Nolon

Part 1: The Need for Public Regulation of Land Use – The First Comprehensive Zoning Law

[“This is the final post in the Zoning’s Centennial series. More posts celebrating zoning’s 100^th birthday will be forthcoming later this year.]

Part 20

Zoning’s Centennial

John R. Nolon

Distinguished Professor of Law, Pace Law School

Counsel, Land Use Law Center

Land Use Law and Climate Change Management

When a New York City commission (1916) and the Hoover Commission (1922) created zoning, and SCOTUS validated it (1926), they had no idea that they were arming local governments to battle climate change. When the floating zone was first created in 1950, the Village legislators in Tarrytown could not have known that this and other Neo-Euclidian techniques could possibly evolve to address such an unfathomable menace.

One hundred years have passed, and we are now at work in coastal communities on Long Island helping local leaders adapt to sea level rise and storm surges. They are digging through our database of strategies and thinking of creating a wholly new zone: an “expanding zone”, one that grows as new data about climate change is received. They are trying to get ready to use the “R” word, “retreat”, to explain the inevitable to their residents and business owners. They ask us whether they should create a retreat zone, an adaptation zone, and a safe zone to guide future development. They are utterly preoccupied by this ill-defined space between the mean high tide line and an elevation safe (at least for now) from inundation. They are handling and reshaping the tools that New York City, Hoover, the Supreme Court, and a century of local innovation gave them.

Can they adapt floating zoning, overlay zoning, transfer of development rights zoning, density bonus zoning, conservation easements, wetlands laws, and the land use system’s other inventions to properly control development in these new zones? If they don’t do something of that kind, will they eventually be held liable, legally or politically, for their failure after the next catastrophe occurs or gradual inundation destroys their sole-source drinking water aquifers? How do they account to their children and children’s children for their time at zoning’s helm?

Other local leaders are focused on mitigating climate change. Of course this phenomenon is global, but urban communities are the principal sources of carbon emissions, which are the primary cause of climate change. The Land Use Law Center has created a Mayor’s Redevelopment Roundtable and, through it, currently serves the largest cities and urban villages in our region. These mayors want to know whether they can use zoning’s inventions as well. The Presidential Climate Action Project says that “the greatest potential for reducing greenhouse gas emissions…is to reduce vehicle miles travelled—the miles Americans drive each year.” Hundreds of local governments, including some in the Roundtable, have adopted Transit Oriented Development (TOD) zones and are rezoning for compact, mixed-use development to create “WalkUPs” (walkable urban places). The new demographics—seniors emerging rapidly from their single-family cocoons, mobile millennials looking for lively urban neighborhoods, and immigrants seeking employment—are tipping the urban-suburban balance, and they are being zoned in through TOD and other zoning strategies. Our mayors are interested as well in other tools including energy code enhancements, design controls, green infrastructure, and other techniques to make their neighborhoods safe, lively, and livable places.

This series of blogs demonstrates that zoning is adaptable to new challenges as it responds to changing conditions. We defenders of zoning are reminded, however, that zoning is parochial, extending only to municipal boundaries--far, far short of the reach it needs to effectively manage global climate change. We are also told that localities have limited assets and staff capacity to handle sophisticated problems. We point out that land use law is essential to mitigation. It regulates buildings, which consume 40% of the energy produced in the U.S. It is responsible for vehicle miles travelled, which contribute 33% of CO₂ as personal vehicles motor from origin to destination over a landscape created by zoning. Further, the natural landscape, which sequesters 18% of CO₂, can be diminished or enhanced by zoning.

We are advised to pay attention to top-down, mostly federal solutions as our preferred path to a new era of effective climate control. This endless debate was sharpened in Paris at the Conference of the Parties in 2015. Building on an insight of the UN Climate Change Conference in Warsaw in 2013, the Paris COP memorialized the INDC: Intended Nationally Determined Contributions. The Paris agreement turns climate policy upside down, changing the focus from nation-state dominated action to on-the-ground solutions, guided, bolstered, and supported by state and national governments. This new approach operates from the bottom up, engaging “sub-national” entities, cities, states, corporations, NGOs, etc., to demonstrate how they can contribute to climate change mitigation.

This debate will continue. In March 2016, the U.S. submitted its INDCs to the UN, relying primarily on stricter emissions standards for coal-fired energy generation plants and similar top-down contributions. China, the world’s leading emitter, took a different approach; its INDCs include emission reductions that rely on the construction of green buildings, renewable energy in buildings, low-carbon community operations, low-carbon transportation systems, and promoting pedestrian- and bicycle-oriented neighborhoods. By 2020, China says, 30% of travel will be by transit and 50% of new buildings will be green.

China will have to allocate resources to the municipal level to implement its INDCs. The US can follow suit. Funding, data, and technical assistance—conditioned on intermunicipal or regional cooperation—can remove the barriers to zoning’s larger success. Such a program, funding actors in a system where all politics is local, can truly be a bipartisan effort, one that is much more likely to pass our curious Congress than most top-down solutions. This may be the path to Zoning’s New Century.

For further information: stay tuned.

Links to previous posts in the Zoning Centennial’s Series:

Part 2: The Delegation of Legal Authority To Adopt Zoning

Part 3: Zoning Was Contagious, But Was It Constitutional?

Part 4: The Unintended Consequences of Euclidean Zoning

Part 9: Mixed Signals: Exclusionary Zoning and Fairness

Part 10: The Emergence of the Law of Sustainable Development

Part 11: Designing Density

Part 12: Green Infrastructure

Part 16: Fracking as an Industrial Use under Zoning

Part 17: Water Scarcity and Land Use Planning

Part 18: Zoning: Shaping and Attracting Economic Development

Part 19: Open Space Zoning Turns To Sequestration

May 23, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 18, 2016

Center for American Progress' "Disappearing West" series chronicles land use changes

Earlier this week, the Center for American Progress released a huge web-based project, called "Disappearing West," with lots of maps, data, and videos that illustrate the changing nature of land use in the west. It is well worth spending some time with. The link to the home page is here. From the report:

A team of scientists at the nonprofit Conservation Science Partners, or CSP, analyzed nearly three dozen datasets; a dozen types of human activities; and more than a decade of satellite imagery for 11 western states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.

Here is what they found: Human development in the West now covers more than 165,000 square miles of land. That is roughly the size of 6 million superstore parking lots.

This development is growing fast. Between 2001 and 2011, natural areas in the West—including forests, wetlands, deserts, and grasslands—were disappearing at the rate of one football field every 2.5 minutes.

Here is one of the many videos from the project:

May 18, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 16, 2016

Zoning’s Centennial, Part 19: Open Space Zoning Turns to Sequestration: A Series by John R. Nolon

Part 1: The Need for Public Regulation of Land Use – The First Comprehensive Zoning Law

Part 19

Zoning’s Centennial

John R. Nolon

Distinguished Professor of Law, Pace Law School

Counsel, Land Use Law Center

Open Space Zoning Turns to Sequestration

When the Land Use Law Center was asked in 1994 to report to President Clinton’s Council on Sustainable Development, we concluded that under present zoning, the amount of open space in the Hudson Valley Region would decline from 70% then to 30% by 2050. This estimate was calculated based on the rate at which large tracts of land were being subdivided into smaller, mostly residential parcels. At work were the mechanics of sprawl. Zoning maps adopted by the 256 municipalities in the region created a blueprint for future development, most of which would be residential subdivisions. Once zoned for single-family housing, local planning commissions approve subdivisions, applying standards in subdivision regulations that are adopted by local legislatures.

This erosion of open space, here and throughout the nation, gave rise to a movement. Land trusts came of age as open space concerns stimulated donations of land, development rights, or funds that could be used to acquire such land. Local voters began to approve bond resolutions or support real property tax increments to secure funds to purchase and set aside open space. State support for open space preservation manifested itself in a number of ways that involved direct appropriations, taxes, state bonds, tax exemptions, and local financing schemes. These land purchase and donation initiatives signaled a commitment to mitigate sprawl and its ill effects on the quality of life in developing communities, one parcel at a time.

In the aggregate, these funds allow the purchase of the small percentage of the land that needs to be preserved in order to change the ratio of open space to developed land that we projected in our report. This realization – here and elsewhere – led to an effort to prioritize purchases based on lands that matter most. In the eyes of some communities, this meant the purchase of lands that created a historic viewshed; for others, it meant acquiring land that provided needed ecosystem services. In still others, it meant creating a connected landscape that provided for the movement of critters, water, and people through unfragmented natural areas.

A parallel – but too often disconnected – movement sprung up at the local level through changes in land use regulations and procedures. Some communities began to inventory their undeveloped parcels, prioritize their contributions to residents’ quality of life and the environment, add open space components to their comprehensive plans, and adopt zoning and subdivision regulations that preserved the natural resources associated with open space. Localities began to create a new blueprint, one that balanced open space preservation and development, through use of land exactions, mandatory clustering of development, deductions of constrained land from counting in developable lot calculations, and overlay zoning that added strict standards to development located in critical environmental areas. These efforts, when coordinated by a comprehensive plan, can achieve open space preservation – one community at a time.

Today, a quarter of a century into this movement, attention is slowly focusing on sequestering lands: those that mitigate climate change by absorbing nearly a fifth of the carbon dioxide emitted by vehicles, buildings, and enterprise. Biological sequestration of CO₂ emissions occurs within the vegetated environment; places like forests, pastures, meadows, and croplands. These landscapes naturally absorb and store carbon.

The local and state initiatives that have evolved to preserve and enhance open space provide a basis for a broader sequestration policy, one that builds on available legal technology and existing norms to respond to the looming global perturbation of climate change. The need, however, is to bring these local efforts to scale, particularly when the objective is to achieve a goal as ambitious as climate change mitigation.

With federal and state involvement, the efforts of land trusts and localities can transcend their one parcel and one community at-a-time impacts. Consider two recent examples.

In New Zealand, in heavily forested zones, the federal government identifies carbon accounting areas, uses geospatial mapping systems, establishes metrics, and measures increases in sequestration. The owners of forested land are given accounts and issued certificates of tons sequestered; these credits are tradable, depending on the viability of carbon markets (a story for another day). Land trusts and local governments would benefit from such a scheme, especially from the monies it could bring to their preservation efforts while increasing the percentage of CO₂ sequestered nationally.

A new law in California opened up opportunities to receive compensation for the carbon value of forests and a land trust in eastern Maine is leading the way. The California law requires polluters to reduce their carbon emissions over time, but allows them to use approved "offset" projects to meet up to 8% of their emissions cap. The first group of offset projects announced by the California Air Resources Board listed the Maine-based Downeast Lakes Land Trust preservation project as one of two forest offset projects selected. Proceeds from the sale will allow the land trust to acquire and preserve an additional 55,000 acres of sequestering land.

For more information on open space preservation and sequestration, see John R. Nolon, Managing Climate Change through Biological Sequestration: Open Space Law Redux, 31 Stan. Envtl. L.J. 196 (2012).

Links to previous posts in the Zoning Centennial’s Series:

Part 2: The Delegation of Legal Authority To Adopt Zoning

Part 3: Zoning Was Contagious, But Was It Constitutional?

Part 4: The Unintended Consequences of Euclidean Zoning

Part 9: Mixed Signals: Exclusionary Zoning and Fairness

Part 10: The Emergence of the Law of Sustainable Development

Part 11: Designing Density

Part 12: Green Infrastructure

Part 16: Fracking as an Industrial Use under Zoning

Part 17: Water Scarcity and Land Use Planning

Part 18: Zoning and Economic Development

May 16, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, May 14, 2016

The successes of Miami's form-based zoning code

Governing Magazine has a nice article about Miami's form-based zoning code. Here's an excerpt:

Miami’s Wynwood neighborhood epitomizes hip. A neglected industrial enclave that sat mostly empty just a few years ago, Wynwood today thrums with energy. Its low-slung warehouses and onetime auto garages are filled with buzz-worthy eateries, high-end tattoo studios, vegan juice bars and edgy art spaces. At Wood Tavern, twentysomethings gather around graffiti-covered picnic tables to sip La Rubia blonde ale, brewed just a couple of blocks away at the Wynwood Brewing Company. At nearby Wynwood Kitchen and Bar, diners eat Latin-tinged cuisine under wall-sized paintings by popular street artists. A block down, the line at Panther Coffee can stretch out the door. Throughout the neighborhood, at all hours of the day, people stop to snap selfies in front of the colorful new murals that cover seemingly every inch of every building in Wynwood.

It’s the kind of dynamic urban scene that cities dream about. And it would never have happened, Miami planners say -- or at least not to the same degree of success -- without the city’s new zoning code known as Miami 21. “I cannot imagine it,” says Francisco Garcia, the city’s planning director, shaking his head at the thought. “I just can’t even imagine.”

Miami 21 isn’t actually brand-new: It’s been on the books since 2010. But it was the first true overhaul of the city’s code in nearly 80 years, and it points toward major change in the way Miami will grow for generations to come. The controversial code has altered every aspect of the city’s development, from the way a builder interacts with the planning department to the size of the windows of a finished storefront. And it touches every part of the city, from the shimmering urban high-rises of downtown Brickell to the single-family homes in historic, tree-lined residential neighborhoods like Little Havana and The Roads.

Public zoning codes are typically filled with mind-numbingly dry details of frontages, setbacks and floor-area ratios -- and Miami’s is too. But these codes ultimately determine the way a city looks and feels and functions. They’re the 1s and 0s that build the matrix. Miami 21 may be abstruse, but it’s also a new vision for what the city wants to be.

Miami 21 is what’s known as a form-based code. Rather than prescribing development based on how a plot of land will be used -- residential, say, or mixed-use commercial -- the code defines the physical shape development should take in different parts of the city. That means buildings are considered in context with what’s around them, regardless of what goes on inside. The goal is a more walkable, more human-scale form of development. When Miami adopted the code in 2010, it was the first big U.S. city to implement a form-based code citywide. Six years later, it’s still the only one.

Rest of the article here.

May 14, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 9, 2016

Zoning’s Centennial, Part 18: Shaping and Attracting Economic Development: A Series by John R. Nolon

Part 1: The Need for Public Regulation of Land Use – The First Comprehensive Zoning Law

Part 18

Zoning’s Centennial

John R. Nolon

Distinguished Professor of Law, Pace Law School

Counsel, Land Use Law Center

Zoning: Shaping and Attracting Economic Development

Zoning historically assumed that the private market would inform developers what to build for maximum profit. Its job was to shape individual developments into appropriate human development patterns. The essential land use question, of course, is what type of a community is desirable and feasible to create. Changing demographics, financial markets, and environmental conditions require constant rethinking and resupplying zoning’s toolkit.

Today’s ascendant demographic groups, such as millennials, immigrants, and senior households, prefer “walkups,” that is, walkable urban places. They have driven the real estate market toward urban centers and challenged urban planners to shape livable, sustainable, and lively neighborhoods. Fortunately, climate change mitigation also requires walkups, where buildings use less energy, water, and materials, and fewer vehicle trips are taken, resulting in fewer vehicle miles travelled. Zoning occupies a central position in creating the strategies needed to respond to these new market signals.

The Land Use Law Center’s field laboratory is the Hudson Valley Region in New York. Ten years ago, our attention was captured by the changing demographics in the region and its apparent effect on the region’s cities. To focus our energies, we organized a Mayors’ Redevelopment Roundtable, a network of mayors, corporation counsels, and development commissioners representing the region’s 12 largest urban communities. Our strategy was to work with the planning, legal, and development staff of the member communities on urban revitalization to identify common issues; conduct research; identify best land use practices; and provide assistance in implementation. In these places, zoning needs to attract economic development, rather than to simply shape it.

This is a report from the field; a quick summary of some of the issues selected for implementation and a few illustrations of best practices implemented. The highest priorities among the mayors were, not surprisingly, to increase tax ratables, keep expenditures in check, and improve their communities’ aging infrastructure. These, they intended to accomplish through five strategies: job development, sustainable development, infill development, scattered site projects, and distressed property remediation. We found that zoning, land use regulations, and their associated strategies were effective tools to accomplish these objectives.

Job Development: In this context, job development comprises new employment opportunities for Millennials, immigrants, and low-income residents. New development brings with it several opportunities to generate new employment prospects. Building and infrastructure development, including renewable energy projects, create construction jobs and jobs for those who serve construction projects. Many of these jobs require skilled, union labor, but a percentage of them can be filled by less skilled workers, including the young women and men who live in distressed neighborhoods. The City of Newburgh led the way among Roundtable communities, insisting, during the land use review process, that all new and rehabilitation projects and municipal capital projects include local workers and provide them with the necessary training. This objective can be furthered by bonus density zoning to provide the funds developers need for training and supervision.

Sustainable Development: This topic aggregates transit-oriented development, promoting renewables, energy conservation in new and renovated buildings, affordable housing and balanced gentrification, designing for density, and green infrastructure, among others. The City of New Rochelle, through fast tracking the planning and rezoning of its downtown, offering density bonuses, and creating traffic improvements, stimulated a transit-oriented development project around its central transit station that is leveraging redevelopment of adjacent sites. Yonkers created its own list of criteria for sustainable, or green, projects and requires compliance through its power pursuant to the State Environmental Quality Review Act to mitigate adverse environmental impacts by imposing mitigation conditions. Green buildings, for example, mitigate climate change (an adverse environmental impact). Peekskill is increasing zoning density and expanding land uses permitted in its waterfront transit neighborhood, as well as developing its parking lots there to create a sustainable neighborhood that will prime the pump for further downtown redevelopment.

Infill Development: Cities can accomplish many goals through infill development, which emphasizes the development of vacant lots, reuse of abandoned and underutilized buildings, and creative development of open spaces adjacent to corporate, medical, educational, and non-profit buildings. The City of Mount Vernon adopted numerous criteria from the USGBC’s LEED-ND program to guide its rezoning of a transit station area in a developed neighborhood to shape the redevelopment of its remaining infill lots. White Plains is planning a significant Transit Oriented Development program concentrated on the coordinated development of infill sites in proximity to its commuter rail station. This plan begins with two projects comprising 561 rental apartments, retail space, and parking within a short walk of the city’s TransitCenter.

Scattered Site Projects: In some communities, development opportunities are scattered throughout their downtowns and adjacent urban neighborhoods. Prioritizing the development of a few such sites in order to leverage development nearby is a strategy of interest to the Roundtable communities. The Village of Brewster adopted an urban renewal plan that shaped its rezoning to encourage development of scattered sites throughout the neighborhoods within walking distance of its train station. The Village of Port Chester selected five market-ready “hot spots” for redevelopment as the first step in warming up the market in adjacent neighborhoods.

Distressed Property Remediation: In order to revitalize downtowns, other neighborhoods, and infill sites, areas of concentrated distressed properties need to be addressed. Buildings and properties there provide an opportunity for affordable housing for existing residents, workforce housing for needed new employees, and sites for job development itself. The City of Poughkeepsie is planning a large-scale downtown-focused project that will use flexible zoning, coordinated transit, pedestrian and bike ways, development on underused parking lots, and a variety of funding sources to initiate pump-priming projects in the area. Newburgh created the first city-wide land bank in the State of New York, which is acquiring vacant lots and buildings, selectively demolishing some of them, promoting community gardening and security devices, and preparing sites for private market development, stimulated by new zoning techniques it recently adopted.

All of these projects and strategies create tensions among local interest groups and require the cooperation of multiple stakeholders, such as property owners, developers, equity advocates, city departments, taxpayers, and local resident leaders. They call for new approaches to project development and approval, including the use of consensus building techniques for community decision-making. Lawyers who are trained in conflict resolution and settlement are particularly needed to advise their clients and local officials how to achieve economic development through strategies like those implemented through the Mayors’ Redevelopment Roundtable. In these stories can be glimpsed the collaborative and creative work that needs to be done in zoning’s second century.

For more information on the Mayors’ Redevelopment Roundtable and the strategies discussed above, email [email protected]; See also John R. Nolon & Jessica A. Bacher, The Role of Lawyers in Resolving Environmental Interest Disputes, Real Estate L.J. (Winter 2008).

Links to previous posts in the Zoning Centennial’s Series:

Part 2: The Delegation of Legal Authority To Adopt Zoning

Part 3: Zoning Was Contagious, But Was It Constitutional?

Part 4: The Unintended Consequences of Euclidean Zoning

Part 9: Mixed Signals: Exclusionary Zoning and Fairness

Part 10: The Emergence of the Law of Sustainable Development

Part 11: Designing Density

Part 12: Green Infrastructure

Part 16: Fracking as an Industrial Use under Zoning

Part 17: Water Scarcity and Land Use Planning

May 9, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, May 7, 2016

Penn State study highlights the professionalization of the short-term rental space

Back in January, some hospitality and real estate scholars at Penn State released a study of the short-term rental market. The key findings are below, which emphasizes the growth of professional operators in major markets:

May 7, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, May 5, 2016

The days of the neighborhood grocer: A visit to Boise's North End

Today I thought I would blog about a historic marker that was just installed in the park three blocks away from my house. I live in Boise's North End, a historic neighborhood that was built on a grid system where residents could buy one, two, or three 25 x 100 lots. It made for an eclectic mix of starter homes and mansions, side by side.

Within this small neighborhood were a number of neighborhood groceries that people ran out of their homes. See the map below. It is kind of remarkable to imagine so many grocers, all operated within homes, in such a small neighborhood. But I kind of love the idea. I also love the idea that there was so much open retail built into the fabric of the neighborhood.

Independent of the economics of being a neighborhood grocer, it is hard to imagine such retail being permitted in single-family use districts throughout much of the country. I wonder how today's North End, which is considerably wealthier than in the days when these grocers were operating, would respond--or welcome--such retail uses today.

May 5, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Happy 100th Birthday, Jane Jacobs!

By Land Use Prof

Today is the 100th birthday of land use thinker extraordinaire, Jane Jacobs! She died almost exactly 10 years ago. Google has a beautiful little doodle. And The Guardian has a thoughtful remembrance by Saskia Sassen (Columbia-Sociology). Walk a few blocks in a city today.

Jim K.

May 4, 2016 in Urbanism | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Two questions for the Colorado Supreme Court's fracking cases: Do land use regulations of fracking survive in Colorado? Should the scope of a state agency's rulemaking govern preemption of local governments?

2016 CO 28, 15SC668 - City of Fort Collins v. Colorado Oil and Gas Association
2016 CO 29, 15SC667 - City of Longmont v. Colorado Oil and Gas Association

I just did a radio interview with Bloomberg Law regarding the two Colorado fracking cases that came out yesterday. A link to the podcast of the live show is here.

The two cases:

In addition to my comments on the show, I would note the following:

Land use regulations of fracking appear to survive the decisions. To my reading, the cases do not preclude local land use zoning regulations of fracking, which is something that is not coming out in the media discussions. See the Fort Collins case at Slip Op. 12-13. Rather, what the cases seem to say, collectively, is that a ban--such as that of Longmont--is preempted by state law per a two step test. First, the court determined that the ban was a matter of mixed state and local concern. Second, because there was a state interest, then the question of whether the local regulation is valid turns of whether it conflicts with state law. Under Colorado law, in matters of purely local concern, state laws do not preempt home-rule enactments, but in matters of statewide or mixed concern, state laws supersede any conflicting local regulations, irrespective of the relative dominance of the state interest." In both cases, the Colorado Supreme Court held that there was neither express nor implied preemption. The question then was whether there was "operational conflict" preemption, which the court announced as a standard of "whether the effectuation of a local interest would materially impede or destroy a state interest. In Longmont, they held that a ban did materially impede, and thus was preempted. However, in the Fort Collins 5-year moratorium, there is a more subtle discussion. In Fort Collins, they held that the moratorium was preempted under the same standard because it (1) detleteriously affects what is intended to be a state-wide program of regulation and (2) impedes the goals of the Oil and Gas Conservation Act. Nonetheless, I read Fort Collins to hold that land use regulations are not preempted and, moreover, that shorter moratoria may still be able to meet the standards evinced for preemption in these cases. What do others think?
Can a Department regulate its way into State preemption? In evaluating the extent of the State's interest in its operational conflict preemption analysis, almost the entirety of the argument of the court rests not on the statute, but on administratively created regulations. See Longmont Slip Op. at 23-24. I find this fascinating when you consider that, under the Court's analysis, the creation of regulations by a state agency is sufficient to evince a state interest, especially when the court does not dig into the history of those regulations. There's something about that, which feels less-than-satisfying to me. Again, what do others think? Should a state agency be able to regulate its way into preemption of local governments?

In any case, the interview also features Charles Warren. I welcome folks thoughts.

May 3, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (1)

My TED Talk: Four ways the sharing economy is changing us

I did a TED Talk back in April on the sharing economy hosted at the local TEDx Boise. The video from the talk was just released yesterday, and I've re-posted below. The talk incorporates many ideas from my two articles on the sharing economy (here and here).

If you have 13 minutes to spare, I'll give you four big ideas worthy of cocktail party chatter, if not the faculty lounge.

May 3, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 2, 2016

UDenver Interdisciplinary Research Incubator for the Study of (In) Equality (IRISE) offering two-year postdoctoral research fellow: Applications due May 9

The IRISE postdoctoral fellowship will provide opportunities to conduct environmental justice research with a fully-equipped Geographical Information Systems (GIS) laboratory, as well as access to robust documentary and archival collections, local government officials, community activists, and policy institutes, including the Lincoln Institute for Land Policy. In addition to post-dissertation research support, the postdoctoral fellow will have the opportunity to work with mentors toward providing a nucleus for a continued scholarly collaboration, interact with the faculty and graduate students in each of the sponsoring departments and divisions, and receive clerical and research support sufficient to allow the completion of a major research product during his or her time at DU. The fellow will spend the majority of time engaged in independent research, scholarship, community engagement or creative work under the guidance of departmental faculty members. Fellows will also be expected to be active in the DU community of scholars engaged in research and teaching relating to the study of inequality and environmental justice locally and nationally. Fellows will teach one course in their specialty the first year and two courses in their specialty the second year. The successful candidate will also be expected to attend and contribute to a weekly seminar and support other initiatives of the IRISE, such as promotion of conferences and symposia.

Position Summary

The University of Denver Interdisciplinary Research Incubator for the Study of (In) Equality or IRISE is seeking a two-year postdoctoral research fellow beginning September 1, 2016. We are seeking candidates who are capable of bringing together insights from the disciplines of geography, social work, law, and/or a related field to the interdisciplinary study of the relationship between racial, ethnic, and socio-economic inequality and decisions about environmental justice in United States and around the world. The fellow will be housed in the Center for Sustainability at the University of Denver, with co-supervision and mentorship by faculty from Geography & the Environment, Social Work, the Center for Sustainability as well as the Sturm College of Laws Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute and Community Economic Development Clinic. DU faculty members from these departments will provide guidance and support throughout the fellowship period. The ideal candidate would have training or a strong interest in environmental justice and interdisciplinary academic endeavors. Candidates should be committed to working with diverse student and community populations. We do not expect the candidate to have experience in all areas of the fellowship, as training will be provided by the mentors. In addition, because of the value of lived experiences in the investigation and understanding of inequality, we especially encourage applications from historically underrepresented groups. The appointment term is September 1, 2016 - August 31, 2017; however, the initial term may be renewed for an additional year.

Essential Functions

Teach one advanced undergraduate course in year one and two courses, including an interdisciplinary graduate class, in year two.
Participate in a quarterly educational inequities research group and colloquiums for the DU campus as part of the IRISE lecture series.
Participate in campus-wide forums exploring questions of compositional diversity and inclusive excellence at DU and the broader academy.
Present research findings to interdisciplinary academic audiences and community partners.
Document and memorialize the various efforts and initiatives at DU that are related to environmental justice and sustainability in order to help advance the interdisciplinary work in these related fields.

Required Qualifications

PhD, SJD, or JD in Geography, Environmental Science, Urban Planning, American Studies, Social Work, Law or a related field.
Completed all requirements for terminal degree by June 30, 2016.

No more than 3 years from the awarding of degree (i.e., September 2013) To apply, please complete the on-line application at https://dujobs.silkroad.com/ and attach the following:

a letter of application (including a statement of research and teaching interests)
a curriculum vitae
reference listing (minimum of three (3) references)

Candidates must apply online to be considered, only applications submitted online will be accepted. Once within the job description online, please click "New Resume/CV" at the bottom of the page to begin application.

The online application must be completed and submitted no later than 6:00 a.m. Mountain Standard Time on May 9, 2016. Inquiries about this position can be made to search co-chair, Fred Cheever ([email protected]).

May 2, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Colorado Supremes Invalidate Fracking Moratoria, Bans

By Land Use Prof

In long-awaited decisions, today the Colorado Supreme Court invalidated the City of Fort Collins fracking moratorium and the City of Longmont's fracking ban as pre-empted by state law. The decisions can be found here. The cities had argued that their regulation of fracking were valid land use controls, but the Court did not agree.

However, the fight from fracking in Colorado is far from over, as signature gathering is underway for several ballot initiatives for the November election.

Jamie Baker Roskie

May 2, 2016 in Environmentalism, Local Government, Oil & Gas | Permalink | Comments (1)

Zoning’s Centennial, Part 17: Water Scarcity and Land Use Planning: A Series by John R. Nolon

Part 1: The Need for Public Regulation of Land Use – The First Comprehensive Zoning Law

Part 17

Zoning’s Centennial

John R. Nolon

Distinguished Professor of Law, Pace Law School

Counsel, Land Use Law Center

Water Scarcity and Land Use Planning

When zoning was created, the availability of cheap and plentiful water was an unquestioned assumption. In zoning’s blueprint, there are few designs for water supply planning. This is the case even though land use planning determines water demand; the number and type of buildings allowed under zoning determine the per capita water use in a given community. Water supply planning was traditionally the province of the municipal water district, a separate water and sanitation district, or similar entity. Most of these were organized under state statutes that were originally – and remain today – legally disconnected from the zoning and land use planning enabling acts. Water demand and water supply planning have never been connected legally or institutionally.

This separation is a serious flaw in the legal system, particularly in those states with drought, limited snow melt, and declining surface and ground water supplies. Recent U.S. Drought Monitor reports state that 38 out of 50 states are abnormally dry. Sixteen of them are in a moderate drought, nine are in a severe drought, two are in extreme drought, and California is in an exceptional drought.

According to EPA, relief is not on the horizon: “Scientists project that climate change will make some of these extreme weather events more likely to occur and/or more likely to be severe." Relatedly, according to NASA, “continued increases in human-produced greenhouse gas emissions drive up the risk of severe droughts in these regions."

These predictions highlight the importance of connecting water supply and land use planning. Not only can land use planning reduce emissions, but, as the Land Use Law Center’s recent experience in the Interior West demonstrates, land use planning can also reduce per capita water use by up to 140 gallons per day. With the populations of these states projected to increase – by as much as 100% in Colorado – reducing per capita consumption is the logical point at which to begin a comprehensive plan to balance supply and demand.

Zoning that permits large lots, low-density, and dispersed development increases water use per household. Compact, mixed-use development requires less water per household than single-family housing. The infrastructure requirements of both types of development are quite different.

In Utah, planners have determined that water demand drops from approximately 220 gallons per capita per day at a density of two units per acre, to about 110 gallons per acre at a density of five units per acre. More modestly, increasing residential density by 20% can yield a 10% per capita water savings. A study of household water use in Sacramento, CA showed 20-30% less water use in a new urban development than in the suburbs. Because of these significant effects, the link between land use patterns created by local zoning and water conservation needs to be clearly understood. Very few other water planning strategies can have a greater effect on limiting consumption.

Communities should begin by integrating water-efficient land use patterns and strategies into their comprehensive plans. Once this initial step is completed, this vision can be implemented through changes to the zoning code that permit water-efficient land uses in areas targeted for development, discourage development in areas targeted for conservation, and foster building types and landscapes that minimize the use of water.

Similarly, communities with limited room to grow can modify systems to accommodate higher densities and infill development. New forms of zoning, rather than those found in traditional residential zoning district provisions, can be adopted; ones that use new and varied ratios regarding setbacks, lot coverage, open space, livability space, and parking.

Building and land use regulations can reduce water use in several other ways; for example, by mandating water-efficient interior and exterior fixtures and by requiring exterior landscaping practices and plants that reduce water use.

The Land Use Law Center’s Guidebook for Municipal Planners (cited below) in the Interior West states discusses and illustrates several options for communities to consider in their efforts to foster water-conserving land use patterns, such as:

Incorporate water-conserving land uses into as-of-right permitted uses;
Foster water-efficient densities by permitting accessory dwelling units;
Incorporate water-conserving land uses into conditionally permitted uses;
Conditionally permit water-intensive uses upon water-conservation measures;
Condition rezoning on water-conserving practices;
Incentivize water conservation through bonus density zoning;
Use planned unit development regulations to foster water conservation;
Create a water conservation floating zone;
Use overlay zoning to designate areas appropriate for conservation and those prioritized for growth; and
Establish a transfer of development rights program with sending districts to preserve green infrastructure and receiving districts to channel economic development.

Which of these options to choose depends on a number of factors, including the current land use configuration and types of buildings in the community. The pattern of development fostered and types of buildings allowed by zoning must respect the current architecture and land development of the community and build gradually from that base. The biggest factors to consider are density, the utilization of present infrastructure, and the cost of needed additional infrastructure.

For more information see the Land Use Law Center’s Integrating Water Efficiency into Land Use Planning in the Interior West: A Guidebook for Municipal Planners (forthcoming), which will be available through Western Resources Advocates, www.westernresource.org/landuse.

Links to previous posts in the Zoning Centennial’s Series:

Part 2: The Delegation of Legal Authority To Adopt Zoning

Part 3: Zoning Was Contagious, But Was It Constitutional?

Part 4: The Unintended Consequences of Euclidean Zoning

Part 9: Mixed Signals: Exclusionary Zoning and Fairness

Part 10: The Emergence of the Law of Sustainable Development

Part 11: Designing Density

Part 12: Green Infrastructure

Part 16: Fracking as an Industrial Use under Zoning

May 2, 2016 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Land-use law articles posted to SSRN in April