A homeowner in in Healdsburg, California is suing the city, arguing that its so-called “inclusionary zoning” fee for new construction is is both extortionary and unconstitutional.
Jessica Pilling and her husband wanted to build a new family home with an accessory dwelling unit on a portion of their property. After subdividing their property, they applied for construction permits, only to be hit with a $20,000 inclusionary zoning fee on top of the usual permitting costs.
After the Pillings paid the fee under protest, Jessica Pilling filed a lawsuit against the city.
Pacific Legal Foundation, which is representing Pilling at no cost, explains how the family is a victim of the city’s “extortionary zoning” program:
“The couple owns a duplex, but with their young family growing, the Pillings realized they needed more space—so they subdivided their lot and made plans to build a bigger home and an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on their property.
“That is when the trouble began.
“Thanks to the City’s ‘inclusionary housing’ program, before the Pillings could begin construction, they would have to make a difficult choice: fork over nearly $20,000 or forfeit a chunk of their land to the City.”
“You can’t make housing more affordable by making it more expensive, but that’s what cities like Healdsburg do when they impose so-called ‘inclusionary fees’ on residential development,” Pacific Legal Foundation Attorney David Deerson says.
“The City has it completely backward: new residential development increases housing supply, which tends to lower housing prices,“ Pacific Legal says.
Pacific Legal also cites “a fundamental constitutional defect” with the city’s fee, namely, that governments cannot burden homebuilders with costs for problems they do not create:
“The Supreme Court’s land-use triumvirate in Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), and Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District (2013) established that permit conditions for new construction must be proportional and directly related to its impact. Anything above and beyond is an unconstitutional property taking.”
The lawsuit, Pilling v. City of Healdsburg, cites legal precedent in explaining the extortionary nature of the city’s “inclusionary housing” plan:
“Specifically, the agency must carry the burden of showing that the exaction bears an ‘essential nexus’ and ‘rough proportionality’ to the public impacts of the proposed project, lest the exaction be nothing more than an ‘out-and-out plan of extortion.’ Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U.S. 825, 837 (1987); Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391.”
Pacific Legal contends that Healdsburg’s requirements amount to an exorbitant ransom for permission to build much-needed homes:
“The City imposed an unfair burden on Jessica that was unrelated to her building plans and far more than her fair share toward addressing the city’s larger affordable housing problem.”
All Americans would benefit if the lawsuit is successful, Pacific Legal promises:
“A win will restore her right to build essential housing and further protect the rights of all Americans who simply want to build a home, business, or other project on their own land.”