A U.S. District Court judge has dismissed a lawsuit by the Builders Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh challenging the City of Pittsburgh’s “inclusionary zoning” law.
Judge Robert Colville ruled that the builders’ advocacy group did not have standing to file the suit because it could show no actual harm from “inclusionary zoning,” only the hypothetical of such harm.
But as the Post-Gazette reported, the federal jurist’s decision “leaves the door open for the Builders’ Association to file future lawsuits against the policy.”
“Judge Colville declined to rule on the constitutionality of inclusionary zoning, claiming that the matter falls outside of the court’s jurisdiction and closing the case.”
That, apparently, is because the lawsuit was styled to claim that the zoning law “violated state law and jeopardized several housing projects, including some already underway.”
Thus, it behooves the plaintiffs to refile this lawsuit claiming “inclusionary zoning” is, in theory and in fact, a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Fifth Amendment “Takings Clause.”
Simply stated, government is prohibited from taking private property for public use with just compensation. And that’s no matter if the “taking” is physical or through regulatory action.
To wit, and as the P-G details it:
“Inclusionary zoning requires developers to offer some reduced rents in all new buildings with more than 20 units. The policy was introduced in Lawrenceville six years ago, and has since expanded into Oakland, Polish Hill and Bloomfield.”
The Gainey administration wants such zoning to be applied citywide.
“Inclusionary zoning supporters have long argued that the policy increases Pittsburgh’s short supply of affordable housing units. But developers and some residents counter that it can also drive up costs, delaying construction starts,” the P-G notes.
Amendments to the “inclusionary zoning” law expansion last month allow developers to pay a fee to opt out of the policy but gain looser restrictions on zoning requirements. The city Planning Commission still must weigh in.
But it is extortion by any other name.
And, “’Dictatorial extortion’ by another name,” says Jake Haulk, president-emeritus of the Allegheny Institute.
“The city could create low-cost housing zones but we know that is a colossal failure,” the Ph.D. economist adds. “So they try to piggyback on private-sector profitable building.”
That risk those developers’ much-needed profits.
The bottom line is this simple, as the Rutgers Center for Real Estate concluded several years ago:
“(I)t’s hard to find much evidence that [inclusionary zoning] has contributed significantly to solving housing costs issues; and given the potential for shifting costs from developers to consumers, it’s hard to see it as having a lot of potential.”
Period.
The Builders Association of Greater Pittsburgh may have lost one battle against “inclusionary zoning” but it can and must continue to battle this government’s continuing war on free markets, sound economics and liberty itself.
Colin McNickle is communications and marketing director at the Allegheny Institute for Public Policy (cmcnickle@alleghenyinstitute.org).
