Land Use Prof Blog

My comments submitted to NCBE regarding removal of land use subjects from the bar

I submitted the following comments to the NCBE today.  I welcome folks' thoughts and would be happy to post other professors' or professionals' comments on the blog, too.

Also, I asked NCBE to review my analysis in a previous post as to the subjects to be eliminated.  NCBE confirmed that my analysis was correct.

Here is the website where you can submit formal comments to NCBE:  https://nextgenbarexam.ncbex.org/csopc-register/. 

_______________

 

I want to start by saying that I recognize the difficult work it takes to restructure the bar exam, and I commend all of those associated with this effort.  I also understand the desire to reduce the number of subjects on the bar and I generally support that effort.  Nonetheless, I have concerns regarding the proposals for the Real Property subject outline.

At the outset, it is worth acknowledging that the role of the NCBE outlines in the legal academy is not readily agreed upon.  At the most obvious level, the outlines do represent the subjects that will be on the bar exam; however, I have talked to some professors that tell me they do not pay much attention to the outlines in preparing their courses.  I think that position holds more true at elite law schools where the presumption is that students will be able to acquire the details of legal knowledge in a bar course and instead the focus of teaching is primarily legal theory. 

At the other 180 (out of 200 or so) law schools, I suggest that the picture is very different.  At most law schools, preparation for class course coverage—especially in the first year courses—starts with the NCBE subject matter outlines.  I work at one of those schools, and I can attest that though we do not prescribe coverage in courses, we do expect our professors to hit most of the subjects on the NCBE outline that are relevant to first year subjects.  For those schools (such as mine), taking a topic off the subject outline will have one of two effects.  On the one hand, professors may continue to teach the de-listed topic; on the other hand, there could be increasing pressure to teach the tested subject matter more intensely with a hope of driving up bar passage scores.  Having served a term as an associate dean, it is hard for me to believe that the effect won’t be the latter.  What we will see, I believe, is more intense teaching of the subjects remaining on the NCBE subject outlines rather that faculty using the time to teach more relevant subject matter to present-day practice.  And so, I suggest that removal from the outline means, in essence, removal from teaching at most law schools.  That is probably more true the further down the rankings of schools you go, but again, my contention is that NCBE outlines are the centerpiece of course planning at the vast majority of law schools.

This brings me to the proposed changes to the Real Property subject matter outline.  The changes to the Real Property outline are essentially the following four:

1. The elimination of all land use subjects.  The existing outline requires a study of zoning laws, non-conformity, and "rezoning and other changes." 
2. The elimination of all discussion of common interest communities, the most prevalent form of private land use controls.
3. Takings also appears to be de-emphasized; it is not a starred subject in the Con Law section meaning students apparently are not expected to know the doctrine, just be able to work with it. See the intro note below.
4. Private nuisance is emphasized; public nuisance is not.

With these changes, the remaining subjects emphasize private transactional real estate practice almost exclusively.  I suggest that is highly problematic to students’ understanding of how real property law works today.  That is because the proposed change would result in virtually no coverage of public or administrative law on real property, a remarkable choice given how property operates today.  Virtually all land in the U.S. is zoned or otherwise subject to some kind of regulation.  Even in Houston, which has no zoning, land is controlled through private restrictive covenants enforced by the city through third party rights of enforcement.  If the scoping outline eliminates all forms of public regulation of property, students in classes guided by the outline will leave with a deeply misguided sense of what property is today. 

It also strikes me as an unusual time in the history of property to decide to eliminate land use topics from the bar.  There is arguably more interest in land use regulation than ever, in large part due to the heightened understanding within the last decade of how these regulations have been abused to segregate communities along racial and class lines.  There is also an increased focus on land use due to the unprecedented challenges of housing affordability.  There is also recognition that land use is essential to resolving the climate crisis.  As California’s 2017 Scoping Plan noted, “Contributions from policies and programs, such as renewable energy and energy efficiency, are helping to achieve the near-term 2020 target, but longer-term targets cannot be achieved without land use decisions that allow more efficient use and management of land and infrastructure.”  California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, CAL. AIR RES. BD.,  100 (2017), https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/sites/default/files/classic/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.  That the bar would de-emphasize these subjects at a time of heightened interest in the topic is hard to understand.

I am similarly concerned about the elimination of the common interest community (CIC).  My understanding is that there are presently very few traditional restrictive covenants of the two-party variety drafter much anymore; all of the action is in CICs.  According to a recent paper, nearly 60% of new residential construction is subject to HOAs, a residential form of CICs.  See Wyatt Clarke & Matthew Freedman, The rise and effects of homeowners associations, 112 J. of Urban Economics (2019) 1–15.  Commercial developments are also commonly subject to CICs, which has become an ever-increasing headache for redevelopment of aging commercial properties.  Teaching restrictive covenants without teaching CICs is a decision to teach an ancient rule without teaching its modern real-world application. 

Similarly, the de-emphasis of takings and public nuisance is odd to me at a time when the Supreme Court seems interested in re-framing the takings clause as an ever-increasing sword against a variety of governmental administrative action.  Cedar Point Nursery is indicative of that trend, but I believe there is reason to presume that the trend is just beginning. 

Finally, I do want to commend the expansion of fair housing within the revised outline.  However, if the outline is adopted as proposed, fair housing will be the only public law real property subject left.  I do want to note, though, fair housing as typically taught does not operate the way the other public law subjects proposed for elimination and de-emphasis do.  The disparate treatment and disparate impact claims under the Fair Housing Act operate primarily through litigation, while most of the other public and private regulation subjects slated for removal are primarily administrative in nature.  As a result, it would be wrong to think that fair housing could stand in as representative of public and private law real property regulation because the implementation of fair housing is unique in the world of real property.  Ironically, the most active discussions around fair housing these days are on the long-forgotten third prong of the Fair Housing Act, which requires local governments to “affirmatively further” de-segregated communities.  The first effort to give force to that prong of the Act was the Obama-era Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Rule (AFFH Rule) and recently revived by the Biden Administration.  The tenets of the AFFH Rule require local governments to take prospective steps towards de-segregation.  How so?  Almost universally, those steps are administrative in nature and focus on land use policy changes slated for de-emphasis or elimination on the bar.  See HUD’s AFFH Guidebook.

For these reasons, I suggest that NCBE revisit its decision to eliminate most of the public law subjects on the Real Property scoping outline, as well as CICs.  One option would be to leave these subjects on the outline but not to star them as primary subjects.  A second option would be to more formally define the land use subjects the bar wants to test.  At present, it is admittedly unclear what aspects of “zoning” to emphasis in a day or two of first year class when the subject is massive. 

Thank you for reaching out for comment. 

STEPHEN R. MILLER Professor of Law, Univ. of Idaho College of Law [email protected]  208-364-4559  |  415-377-9501 (Cell)  501 W. Front Street | Boise, ID  83702-7232

NCBE proposes to eliminate all land use subjects and de-emphasize takings on its subject outlines beginning in 2026

I was asked by NCBE to begin a discussion of the Real Property outline of the proposed 2026 NextGen Bar Exam.  For the uninitiated, this is the outline of subjects that NCBE plans to test on the standardized portions of the bar.  NCBE is taking public comment at https://nextgenbarexam.ncbex.org/csopc-register/. The deadline for public comments is April 18.

Here are the proposed new outlines:   Download NextGen Content Scope Outlines Report.

It just so happened that I had undergone an extensive review of our Property course and so I had the existing NCBE coverage for Property handy, and went through the 2026 proposal.  A couple things stand out:

1. The elimination of all land use subjects.  The existing outline requires a study of zoning laws, non-conformity, and "rezoning and other changes."  
2. The elimination of all discussion of common interest communities, the most common form of private land use controls.
3. Takings also appears to be de-emphasized; it is not a starred subject in the Con Law section meaning students apparently are not expected to know the doctrine, just be able to work with it. See the intro note below.
4. Private nuisance is emphasized; public nuisance is not.

I have not submitted comments to NCBE, but wanted to get this out on the blog at their request, and also get folks thinking about it.  I doubt land use has ever played much of a role in the bar exam overall, but I thought it was worth flagging the elimination of these sections of the existing outline.

 

2026 Proposal:  Topics followed by an asterisk (*) will be tested in a way that assumes examinees know the details of the relevant doctrine without consulting legal resources.  All other topics will be tested in a way that assumes examinees have general familiarity with the topics for purposes of issue-spotting or working efficiently with legal resources provided during the exam.
Existing NCBE Real Property Outline subjects (no new subjects proposed by 2026 NCBE Proposal)	Existing NCBE coverage	2026 NCBE Proposal coverage
I.         Ownership of real property	x	x
A.    Present estates and future interests	x	x
1.     Present estates	x	x
a.     Fees simple	x	x*
b.     Defeasible fees	x	x
c.     Life estates	x	x
2.     Future interests	x	x
a.     Reversions	x	x
b.     Remainders, vested and contingent	x	x
c.     Executory interests	x	x
d.     Possibilities of reverter, powers of termination	x	x
e.     Rules affecting these interests (including survivorship, class gifts, waste, and cy pres)	x	x (arguably broader here, stating "language used in conveyance (children, heirs, issue); class members not yet born; when the class closes; conditions on disposition; contingency of survival (express and implied); and affirmative waste, permissive waste, and ameliorative waste (open mines doctrine, obligations to pay taxes, make repairs, apportionment of costs for special assessments)"
B.    Cotenancy	x
1.     Types: tenancy in common and joint tenancy	x	x* (also includes tenancy by the entirety)
2.     Rights and obligations of cotenants	x	x* (also obligationscludes and by the entirety)
a.     Partition	x	x*
b.     Severance	x	x*
c.     Relations among cotenants	x	x
C.    Landlord-tenant law	x	x
1.     Types of tenancies	x	x*
2.     Possession and rent	x	x
3.     Transfers by landlord or tenant [assignment / sublease]	x	x*
4.     Termination (including surrender, mitigation of damages, anticipatory breach, and security deposits)	x	x*
5.     Habitability and suitability [constructive eviction / IWOH]	x	x*
D.    Special problems	x	x
1.     Rule against perpetuities: common law rule and statutory reforms	x
2.     Alienability, descendibility, and devisability of present and future interests	x	x*
3.     Fair housing/discrimination	x	x*
4.     Conflicts of law related to disputes involving real property	x
II.        Rights in real property	x	x
A.    Restrictive covenants (includes equitable servitudes)	x	x
1.     Nature and type	x	x*
2.     Creation	x	x
3.     Scope	x	x*
4.     Transfer	x	x*
5.     Termination	x	x*
6.     Property owners’ associations and common interest ownership communities	x
B.    Easements, profits, and licenses	x	x
1.     Nature and type	x	x*
2.     Methods of creation	x	x
a.     Express	x	x*
b.     Implied	x	x*
c.     Prescription	x	x*
3.     Scope and apportionment	x	x*
4.     Transfer	x	x*
5.     Termination	x	x*
C.    Fixtures	x	x*
D.    Zoning (fundamentals other than regulatory taking)	x
1.     Zoning laws	x
2.     Protection of pre-existing property rights	x
3.     Rezoning and other zoning changes	x
III.       Real estate contracts	x	x
A.    Real estate brokerage	x	x
B.    Creation and construction	x	x
1.     Statute of frauds and exceptions	x	x*
2.     Essential terms	x	x*
3.     Time for performance	x	x*
4.     Remedies for breach	x	x*
C.    Marketability of title	x	x
D.    Equitable conversion (including risk of loss)	x	x
E.    Options and rights of first refusal	x
F.     Fitness and suitability	x
G.    Merger	x	x*
IV.       Mortgages/security devices	x	x
A.    Types of security devices	x	x
1.     Mortgages (including deeds of trust)	x	x*
a.     In general	x	x
b.     Purchase money mortgages	x	x
c.     Future advance mortgages	x	x
2.     Installment land contracts	x
3.     Absolute deeds as security	x
B.    Security relationships	x	x
1.     Necessity and nature of obligation	x
2.     Mortgage theories: title, lien, and intermediate	x	x
3.     Rights and duties prior to foreclosure	x
4.     Right to redeem and clogging the equity of redemption	x
C.    Transfers	x
1.     By mortgagor	x
a.     Assumption and transfer subject to	x
b.     Rights and obligations	x
c.     Application of subrogation and suretyship principles	x
d.     Restrictions on transfer (including due-on-sale clauses)	x
2.     By mortgagee	x
D.    Discharge of the mortgage	x
1.     Payment (including prepayment)	x
2.     Deed in lieu of foreclosure	x
E.    Foreclosure	x
1.     Types	x	x
2.     Acceleration	x	x
3.     Parties to the proceeding	x	x
4.     Deficiency and surplus	x	x
5.     Redemption after foreclosure	x	x
V.        Titles	x	x
A.    Adverse possession	x	x
B.    Transfer by deed	x	x
1.     Requirements for deed	x	x*
2.     Types of deeds (including covenants for title)	x	x*
3.     Drafting, review, and negotiation of closing documents	x
4.     Persons authorized to execute documents	x	x*
C.    Transfer by operation of law and by will	x	x
1.     In general	x	x
2.     Ademption	x	x
3.     Exoneration	x	x
4.     Lapse	x	x
D.    Title assurance systems	x
1.     Recording acts	x	x
a.     Types	x	x
b.     Indexes	x	x
c.     Chain of title	x	x
d.     Hidden risks (e.g., undelivered or forged deed)	x	x
2.     Title insurance	x
E.    Special problems (including estoppel by deed and judgment and tax liens)	x
Other topics covered on bar on other sections of MBE outline
Takings [Con Law IV(d)]	x	x (Proposal Con Law V(b)) ("This topic includes just compensation, the “public use” limitation, and the distinction between taking and regulation.")
Eminent Domain
Penn Coal; Penn Central
Per Se Rules
Trespass [MBE Torts I(a)]	x	x (Proposal Torts I(b)]
Nuisance [MBE Torts IV(a)]	x	x (Proposal Torts V(a)]
Private nuisance	x	x*
Public nuisance	x	x

2L/3L Scholarship to ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference

The following message is from Dwight Merriam:

Subj:  Opportunity for students interested in property rights  

Greetings.

As a longstanding member of Owners' Counsel of America https://www.ownerscounsel.com/ (I am the OCA designee for the State of Connecticut - OCA selects one lawyer from each state), I thought you would want to hear about an opportunity for your 2L/3L students interested in private property rights. 

Last year OCA started a scholarship in the name of its founder, Toby Prince Brigham, a lawyer who spent nearly 50 years defending private property rights. The scholarship pays for all of a student's expenses to attend the ALI-CLE Eminent Domain and Land Valuation Litigation Conference (now entering its 40th year and attended this year by about 200, the first ALI-CLE in-person meeting since the pandemic), where the student will meet and network with leading property rights and eminent domain lawyers and scholars from across the country, while also learning about the substantive law. 

This year the conference was held in Scottsdale, Arizona, and next year it will likely be in another great location. If you know of a student who may be interested in applying for this scholarship, please have them contact Leslie Fields, Executive Director of OCA at [email protected] or 303-806-5155. Further details about the scholarship are included in the attached Brochure. 

Applications are due by October 1st of this year.  

Regards,

Dwight

Download Toby Prince Brigham OCA Scholarship Brochure

 

Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project, Post 40: Lessons Learned

Elisabeth Haub Law School of Law
Pace University
Land Use Law Center
Blog No. 40 of the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
Editor: Brooke Mercaldi
Contributing Author: John R. Nolon, Distinguished Professor Emeritus [*]

Lessons Learned

 

In this 40^th and final blog in our series of reports from our Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project, we focus on lessons we learned over the past two years. During that time, over 30 students working at the Land Use Law Center labored to find and report on innovative land use strategies by local governments to mitigate the adverse effects of catastrophic environmental change on human health.

Lesson One: Six years ago, we posted over 20 blogs on GreenLaw celebrating the centennial of land use law. Our new project dramatically reaffirmed the lesson we learned from that historical review: that local governments adopt innovative land use strategies as they confront serious new environmental challenges. Our current student team learned that municipalities were challenged like never before when, roughly two years ago, four catastrophes emerged simultaneously: COVID-19, profound evidence of racial inequity, a nation-wide housing crisis, and evidence in nearly every community of devastating climate change. The students expected to find many local governments creating innovative land use strategies; they were not disappointed.

Lesson Two: In January of 2020, we created a student-led Land Use, Human Health, and Equity research team to track, analyze, and report on emerging land use strategies. Our students produced 40 blogs for this series. As reported in Blog #39, we learned that many groundbreaking innovations have emerged and many more are on the way. We also relearned, as engaged law professors know, that students are capable of leading the way in discovering and disclosing how the law works when society is challenged. They are deeply invested in problem solving for the future. The remaining lessons demonstrate that point.

Lesson Three: Perhaps the most dramatic change in land use planning was discovered by our LLM team member, Rhea Mallett. She found several examples of local governments adopting what she dubbed eCPs: equitable comprehensive plans (see Blog 26: A New Era of Equity-Based Comprehensive Planning…Finally and Blog 27: Equity-Based Comprehensive Plans: Land Use Policies to Correct Past Disparities). Local governments are adding equitable principles and strategies to their land use plans. They are admitting the racist impacts of previous plans and land use laws, apologizing for them, and committing to a variety of land use reforms to create more equitable communities. Rhea’s foundational article on her findings of first generation eCPs will appear in a forthcoming issue of the Zoning and Planning Law Report.

Lesson Four: In an equally dramatic finding, our 2L Land Use Scholar, William West, discovered several other communities that are using Racial Impact Analyses to evaluate and make more equitable their land use policies, plans, and projects. William discussed his findings at a panel sponsored by the ABA Section of State and Local Government Law at the ABA’s mid-year meeting where the novelty of his work was acknowledged. He will be the author of an article on the advent of land use racial impact studies, which will also appear in the Zoning and Planning Law Report this spring.

Lesson Five: Despite the plenary power of local land use authority, municipalities sometimes need direction from their state governments when they ignore critical issues. This is the case with the high cost of housing attributed in significant part to zoning that excludes affordable types of housing (see Blog 20: Housing, a Crucial Determinant of Health; Blog 21: ADU Introduction; Blog 22: NIMBY Restrictions Poison the Prospects of Accessory Dwelling Units to Address Housing Insecurity; and Blog 23: Zoning to Fill the Missing Middle Gap). The housing crisis has led several states to mandate greater density in single-family zones, which cover an outsized share of the landscape in many communities. Other state mandates are emerging, requiring greater density near transit centers, for example, and reversing the presumption of validity of land use decisions that reject affordable housing projects. Land Use Scholar Bailey Andree is coauthoring an article with our Professor Shelby Green on these actions. It will be published in the ABA’s Property and Probate Journal.

Lesson Six: For several years, we have been studying several types of gentrification and the displacement of current, lower-income residents (see Blog 33: Gentrification: Remedies and Consequences and Blog 34: What is Climate Gentrification and Why is it Different?). Despite its seriousness, the problem has not been addressed effectively by local action in most gentrifying communities. Other than trying to stem displacement by mandating that 10-20% of new housing be affordable, solutions have been hard to find. This too is changing, for example, with communities inventing zoning strategies to create types of housing that are 100% affordable and giving priority occupancy rights to those facing displacement. Land Use Law Scholar Gabriella Mickel will publish the results of her impressive findings on this topic in the next issue of The Urban Lawyer.

Lesson Seven: Zoning that creates Transit Oriented Development (TOD) is a much-needed innovation that creates low carbon land use near transit stations. Our students discovered that TOD, however, could cause housing price increases that further displacement. Students found municipalities that are requiring affordable housing in TOD areas to prevent displacement and the loss of needed workers. They called this strategy “equitable Transit Oriented Development,” or eTOD.

Lesson Eight: Heat waves are a principal cause of death directly related to global warming. Not surprisingly, Urban Heat Island (UHI) areas exist in formerly redlined areas, areas zoned for low-cost housing and brownfield development. Restrictive FHA underwriting standards prevented lending in these neighborhoods. Together, zoning and these lending standards stymied property improvement and infrastructure development where trees are few, pavement is pervasive, and temperatures on hot days are markedly higher than in nearby single-family neighborhoods shaded by ample tree density. Localities are finding ways to increase tree canopies in UHI areas to preserve trees, enhance shading, protect tree roots, and require developers to add vegetative features to their developments (see Blog 9: Urban Heat Islands and Equity and Blog 10: Urban Heat Island and Equity: What Can Local Governments Do?).

Lesson Nine: Our students were aware that these four catastrophes have different causes, call for different solutions, and need to be addressed comprehensively to avoid strategic collisions. Their search for a holistic approach led them to Portland where they discovered a city addressing each of the catastrophes in an integrated fashion directed and linked by new objectives and strategies added to its comprehensive land use plan (see Blog 29: Addressing the Four Pandemics – A Case Study).

Lesson Ten: The Portland example and, cumulatively, all 140 land use strategies found by our students are efforts to create resilient communities that can absorb and adjust to the shocks of climate change and the other critical challenges they face. The first blog in our series noted that we need “to reframe sustainability” and to “contribute to communities’ healthy and resilient post-pandemic futures while also reinvigorating cities’ climate change management capabilities.” (See Blog 1: Reframing Sustainability: Introducing the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project.) Our students are aware of the overpowering influence that climate change is having today, right now, on their careers, families, and environment. They see great promise in embracing resilience as a core principle for our conversations and our policies. They recommend that, after a short break, we reconvene as the Land Use Resilience Initiative. “Land Use” because it is that body of law that we use to shape neighborhoods and larger settlements. “Resilience” because it is our interconnected built and natural environments that must be capable of adjusting to the changing climate.

Our students also recommend that we devise new ways of communicating the results of our research. They want to move beyond blogs and outside the academy. They want to use social media methods to reach stakeholders at the ground level who need to know how to turn the results of our research into effective local strategies. Their outstanding work on our Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project makes it clear that they know what they are talking about. Stay tuned.

Postscript: I have noticed an uptick in the number of our law students who come to us with undergraduate concentrations in studies such as communications, psychology, behavioral economics, and extracurricular engagements with groups and organizations at the grass roots level. This may explain their interest in sidebar disciplines that we teach such as complex adaptive systems, the diffusion of innovation, and collaborative subsidiarity. Our students represent a generation that has to construct policy and make critical decisions effectively. It is not enough to adopt a collection of innovative land use strategies. These sidebar disciplines teach that systems thrive through the connectivity of their component parts, that innovations are spread by peer-influencers, and that local governments must collaborate with state and federal agencies to solve larger problems. Intuitively, our students know the importance of these effective communication skills. They may be teaching us about the connective sinews and flexible tissues that create lasting resilience.

[*] John R. Nolon is a Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and is Counsel to the Land Use Law Center. He supervises student research and publications regarding land use, sustainable development, climate change, housing insecurity, racial inequity, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Brooke Mercaldi is a second-year student at the Elisabeth Haub School of Law and Land Use Scholar in the Land Use Law Center.

The previous blogs in the series are listed here:

1. Reframing Sustainability: Introducing the Land Use, Human Health, and Equity Project
2. Planning for Public Health: A New Beginning for Land Use Law
3. The Role of Density in Combatting Climate Change and COVID-19
4. Novel Coronavirus Claims Implicate Age-Old Property Rights Questions
5. State & Local COVID-related Emergency Powers: Individual Rights
6. COVID-Related Land Use Regulations and Judicial Deference
7. Mediation of Eviction Disputes May Hold the Key to the Survival of Small Businesses
8. Using Zoning to Help Eliminate Food Deserts: A Few Steps Forward
9. Urban Heat Islands and Equity
10. Urban Heat Island and Equity: What Can Local Governments Do?
11. The Recovery Lease: Preventing Evictions of Commercial Tenants During the Pandemic
12. The Role of Hazard Mitigation Planning in Promoting Public Health and Resilience
13. Hazard Mitigation Planning: A Case Study
14. Complete Streets: Protecting Public Health
15. Zoning and Lease Mediation as a Way to Retain Critical Small Businesses
16. Segregation by Law and the Racial Inequity Pandemic
17. Combating Food Swamps to Improve Equity and Public Health
18. The Pandemic Plan for Healthy Buildings
19. Remediating Distressed Properties to Improve Public Health
20. Housing, a Crucial Determinant of Health
21. ADU Introduction
22. NIMBY Restrictions to Poison the Prospects of Accessory Dwelling Units to Address Housing Insecurity
23. Zoning to Fill the Missing Middle Housing Gap
24. Old Tools to Fight Housing Insecurity: Adaptive Reuse and Infill Development
25. Racial Impact Analyses
26. A New Era of Equity-Based Comprehensive Planning…Finally
27. Equity-Based Comprehensive Plans: Land Use Policies to Correct Past Disparities
28. Reversing the Legacy of Redlining: Reducing Exposure to Toxins and Pollutants Through Land Use Law Reform
29. Addressing the Four Pandemics – A Case Study
30. Health Impact Assessments: A New Tool for Analyzing Land Use Plans, Zone Changes, and Development Projects
31. Putting the “e” in TOD
32. The Four Pandemics Explained and Addressed by Land Use Law and Policy
33. Gentrification: Remedies and Consequences
34. What is Climate Gentrification and Why is it Different?
35. Using Supportive Housing to Address Homelessness
36. Low Carbon and Resilient Land Use: Part 1
37. Low Carbon and Resilient Land Use: Part 2
38. Low Carbon and Resilient Land Use: Part 3
39. Gaining Ground on Four Catastrophes: How to Find and Use Strategies to Protect Human Health

To subscribe to the GreenLaw Blog, please go to https://greenlaw.blogs.pace.edu/ and click on the “Subscribe” envelope.