As President of Housing Land Advocates (HLA), I am pleased to announce that HLA and the American Planning Association have filed a joint amicus brief in the latest case to challenge the Fair Housing Act’s (FHA) disparate impact standard. The Texas Dept. of Housing and Community Affairs case questions whether state administrators of federal low income housing tax credits (LIHTC) programs must consider the location of the housing and whether the location has a disparate impact on protected classes. Ed Sullivan, HLA Board Member and APA Amicus Committee member submitted the brief on behalf of the amici.
Here is an excerpt of the summary of the argument:
From the perspective of professional planners engaged in development efforts across the United States, the benefits of continued recognition of a disparate impact-standard under the FHA substantially outweigh the minimal costs that the standard imposes. Decades of operation under a legal framework that has uniformly recognized disparate-impact claims has taught the institutions and professionals engaged in development to work within the standard’s requirements. Those requirements have proven to be fully consistent with efficient project planning and execution efforts. Reversing course at this point would be disruptive to established practices and, ultimately, would thwart just and effective planning efforts.
The benefits that flow from compliance with the FHA’s disparate-impact standard have been substantial. The legitimacy of public institutions depends, in significant part, on transparent decision making. In the context of urban and rural development efforts, it is inevitable that certain projects will affect some groups of persons more than others. Responsible planners consider the unintended consequences of development projects, explain to the public why a project is necessary and beneficial notwithstanding its disadvantages, and engage in dialogue with affected community members to minimize a project’s drawbacks. Institutions that properly explain the reasoning behind their decisions enjoy greater public support for and participation in their long-term objectives.
The FHA’s disparate-impact framework furthers transparency and legitimacy by committing planning professionals and public institutions to a dialogue with those affected by their actions. Under the most pervasive articulation of the standard, housing plans must serve legitimate, nondiscriminatory interests through the least discriminatory means available. This includes development efforts that are part of the federal low income housing tax credit (LIHTC) program. Over the course of decades, that norm has become an accepted component of the planning process. Today, responsible developers share their objectives with potentially disadvantaged persons and groups and together develop plans to minimize projects’ adverse effects. This kind of transparency makes affected groups more apt to lend their support to projects, view such projects as fair, and regard planners and public institutions as legitimate actors in the public space.
The costs, meanwhile, of the disparate-impact framework have proven to be minimal. Over the course of four decades, complying with the existing legal regime has not thwarted economically beneficial development efforts, including those made as part of the LIHTC program. That is because, properly understood, the possibility of a disparate impact does not make a development project unlawful—it simply requires that institutions provide and articulate nondiscriminatory justifications for projects that adversely affect protected groups.
In sum, the FHA’s disparate-impact standard has promoted just and efficient planning and development efforts for decades. Overturning that standard now would decrease the legitimacy of public institutions and the planning profession, disrupt practices that have advanced under the standard, and ultimately disadvantage the public interests that development projects are designed to serve.
You can read the entirety of the brief here.
One of the most common concerns about land use hearings is whether a decision maker is “biased,” or whether they can make a fair decision. In Columbia Riverkeeper v. Clatsop County, ___ Or App ___, ___ P3d ___ (2014), the Oregon Court of Appeals expressed their view of bias and it likely does not match what most people think of “bias.”
Oregon was one of the leaders in requiring more process and elements of fairness in land use decision-making. As far back as Fasano v. Washington Co. Comm., 264 Or 574, 588, 507 P2d 23 (1973), the Oregon Supreme Court noted that participants to a quasi-judicial proceeding are entitled to a "tribunal which is impartial in the matter." However, the courts have also long recognized that the role county commissioners play in land use is not the same as a judge:
"A judge is expected to be detached, independent and nonpolitical. A county commissioner, on the other hand, is expected to be intensely involved in the affairs of the community. He is elected because of his political predisposition, not despite it, and he is expected to act with awareness of the needs of all elements of the county, including all government agencies charged with doing the business of the people." Eastgate Theatre v. Bd of County Comm'rs, 37 Or App 4 745, 588 P2d 640 (1978)."
In the case decided last week, LUBA had remanded a decision because of what it saw as bias on the part of one of the county commissioners, Peter Huhtala in reviewing an application to site a liquid natural gas (“LNG”) facility. The commissioner had run for office largely on his opposition to LNG facilities, and the record was replete with his opposition to the concept and to some particular applications. LUBA looked at that record and found Huhtala disqualified because of his bias.
The Court of Appeals focused on the “matter” before the county commission and the Commission’s role in applying the applicable land-use laws to a discrete set of facts and evidence. The Court of Appeals was not troubled about the commissioner’s opposition to other aspects of LNG facilities, noting that these were “political predispositions.” The only actions Huhtala had taken with reference to the pending application did not demonstrate any bias and, therefore, the Court of Appeals found Commissioner Huhtala to not be disqualified on the basis of bias.
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vandergriff, 2014 WL 3558001 (5th Cir.) involved the rejection of Plaintiff’s specialty license plate design application (which includes the Confederate Battle Flag) submitted to Defendants, the Chair and Motor Vehicle Board of Texas. In addition to publicly-issued license plates, Texas allows private vendors to propose plates to the Board and specifically allows nonprofit organizations to propose plate designs. The Board may deny the design if it “may be offensive to any member of the public.” The Sons of Confederate Veterans (SCV) had its license plate design rejected because of the association of the Confederate flag with hate and hate groups. The Federal District Court found the Texas specialty license plate program was a non-public forum, that the denial was content-based rather than viewpoint based, and that the rejection was reasonable under the circumstances, so that a First Amendment violation did not occur.
On review, the Fifth Circuit turned first to jurisdiction, and it had previously denied relief in Henderson v. Stalder, 407 F.3d 351 (5th Cir., 2005), pursuant to the Tax Injunction Act in a case in which pro-choice advocates alleged Louisiana was engaged in allowing pro-life license plates inimical to its views. The court distinguished Henderson and like cases when the license fees imposed were not a tax, a party (other than a taxpayer) is the plaintiff and the result will be to enrich, rather then to deplete, public coffers. Here, SCV is not a taxpayer and the result of the litigation, if successful, would raise state revenues. The Fifth Circuit then proceeded to review the grant of summary judgment by the trial court on a de novo basis.
The court saw the issues on appeal as: whether the speech at issue was public or private and, if private, whether the denial constituted a permissible content-based regulation or impermissible viewpoint discrimination.
The First Amendment does not regulate government speech but prohibits most government regulations of private speech. The difference between public and private speech is determined whether a reasonable spectator would believe that the government was speaking to them. In this case, unlike a permanent monument in a park, a license plate is temporary expression and, in this case, open for diverse expressions of viewpoints by the public agency and nonprofits. Few would classify vanity license plates or the 350 existing specialty plates in Texas as government speech.
Having found the speech to be private, the court turned to whether the action was content, regulation or viewpoint discrimination, the latter of which is “presumptively impermissible” and, in reality, an egregious form of impermissible content discrimination. SCV argued the views of those offended by the Confederate battle flag is no different then the many number of veterans license plates available in Texas for those who have fought in our country’s wars and the only reason the subject design was rejected was because of the viewpoint it represents. The First Amendment was designed to protect speech from coercion over its viewpoint. The standard used in this case “might be offensive to any member of the public” lacks any limiting sideboards and gives unbridled discretion to the Board. The First Amendment is not met when a public entity suppresses all viewpoints on a particular subject. A public agency may not shield the public from minority views that might be offensive to some. Accordingly, the trial court decision was reversed.
Judge Jerry E. Smith dissented, finding no “reasonable observer” standard in the United States Supreme Court case law. The dissent agreed that SCV had standing, notwithstanding the Tax Injunction Act and that the case could be classified as viewpoint discrimination, but the dissent also thought that the design constituted government speech. Because the reasonable observer test was not appropriate (in large part because that standard was derived from a concurring opinion of Justice Souter in Pleasant Grove City, Utah v. Summum, 555 U.S. 467 (2009), which the rest of the court did not adopt and which the dissent felt was contradicted by other Supreme Court precedent).
The dissent agreed that four or five of the other circuits had found similar licensing programs were not “government speech” but suggested that none of the decisions deals adequately with Summum (in which the United States Supreme Court found the placement of monuments was government speech, to which the First Amendment was not applicable). Whether the monument were financed publically or privately and installed with government permission was irrelevant. In that event, license plates (which are mandatory) could have a program under which private persons or nonprofit organizations could engage an alternative design, subject to Board approval. The court added:
* * *The reasoning in Summum informs that if Texas license plates would constitute government speech only if Texas has designed the plates itself, they do not lose their governmental character just because Texas accepted a privately designed message, endorsed it, and then placed it on its plates. [Footnote omitted.]
As with monuments in public places, license plates are identified with the state governments that issue them and specialty license plates cannot exist without the state’s cooperation and offer to manufacture and sell them. Thus the law allows Texas to choose whether it wishes to be associated with the Confederacy by others. SCV has other means to advance its message and the state is not required to have the state embrace that message. Confederate flags may be displayed as bumper stickers or other appendages on cars, houses, etc. The proper analogy in this case is to monuments in public parks, rather then leafleting.
The dissent rejected the binary choice of the majority that the distinction is between government and private speech and that, if the speech be private, there can be no viewpoint discrimination so that if a driver sees an offensive license plate design, she would naturally attribute that design to the driver, rather than the state. But in Summum, the United States Supreme Court found the government had the right to speak and express its own views in monuments, regardless of how those monuments were financed. The association that public and private persons present at events (such as sponsorships in football games) is voluntary and meant to promote that association in the public mind. Summum says that government need not be forced to associate with all viewpoints because it has associated itself with one. The government may not force someone to disseminate its message (so that a state could not force a driver to have a “choose life” or “support choice” license plate), and it need not accommodate all views in license plate designs.
While this case does not, strictly speaking, relate to land use it does have importance in dealing with uses and public spaces as well as with messages that are regulated under land use law. The dissent in this case appears to have the more cogent argument.
Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans v. Vandergriff, 2014 WL 3558001 (5th Cir.)
News Update! The United States Supreme Court has granted cert in this case, now referred to as Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans.
One of your faithful columnists, Ed Sullivan, is retiring after forty-five years of law practice at the end of 2014. While he will continue to write this column for a little longer, he shares his thoughts on the evolution of Oregon land use law over that time.
I graduated from Willamette University College of Law in 1969, having come to Oregon only three years previously and knowing no one when I arrived. Fortune directed me to Washington County, a very different place than it is now, to become an Assistant County Counsel, and in less than 18 months, County Counsel.
Fortune also smiled in giving me the Fasano v. Washington County case to brief and argue. This case involved approval of a manufactured home park in a suburban residential area now part of Tigard. But the case was a vehicle to ponder the way that Oregon views small area rezoning and the relationship of the comprehensive plan to land use regulation. While the County lost the case in 1973 because the findings (which I did not write) were inadequate, the case formed a solid basis for Oregon land use planning by requiring county land use regulations and actions to “carry out” a required comprehensive plan and treating small tract rezoning as “quasi-judicial” actions, requiring hearings officers or bodies to allow the presentation and rebuttal of evidence, to avoid or reveal ex-parte contacts, and to justify their decisions by findings. A similar case in 1974, Baker v. City of Milwaukie, required that cities align their regulations and actions to their plans as well. I was fortunate enough to appear as an amicus curiae before the Oregon Supreme Court on behalf of the predecessors to the American Planning Association and even more fortunate to be allowed to present oral argument to the court. These cases aligned well with the emerging Oregon planning system enacted in 1973 by SB 100.
After receiving my LL.M. in London, I entered private practice and represented applicants, opponents and local governments in many hearings and appeals. Among those cases were persuading Clackamas County to deny its own permit for gravel mining, getting approval of the Lake Oswego water system expansion from West Linn, getting the Douglas County plan and regulations acknowledged by LCDC, and assisting Cannon Beach in the adoption of its short term rental ordinance. I’ve also represented a number of local governments, including Oregon City for the last 25 years.
Perhaps my most unusual task was dealing with the Rajneesh sect, which came to Oregon in 1981 and sought to establish a city on the “Big Muddy Ranch” in Wasco and Jefferson Counties and managed to antagonize just about everyone. While the land use efforts were generally successful, the other activities of that group in taking over an adjacent city, poisoning salad bars and bringing in homeless people to register to vote in sparsely populated areas, resulted in its downfall. The offensive tactics of that group, and the reaction to them, tell us a lot about Oregon.
Besides the cases and controversies, I have been able to watch new planners and lawyers grow for over 40 years, teaching at the Portland State University School of Urban and Public Affairs and at the Lewis and Clark and Willamette law schools. In addition, I have been privileged to serve as Chair of the Section on State and Local Government Law of the American Bar Association, Regional Vice President of the International Municipal Lawyers Association, and have done many presentations on land use in the United States and internationally.
It has been a good run with fascinating people, places and events. While I will end my law practice, I hope to continue to teach, write and speak, especially on land use planning issues, for as long as those efforts are useful. Thanks for reading and commenting on this column.
Edward J. Sullivan has specialized in land use law for over 40 years and is an owner in the Portland Office of Garvey Schubert Barer. Mr. Sullivan is a Past Chair of the State and Local Government Law Section of the American Bar Association and may be reached at 503-228-3939 or at email@example.com.
In 2007 the voters approved Measure 49 with the effect that certain property owners were authorized to develop additional home sites on land that many thought would see no new development. Now, DLCD is trying to breathe new life into the home approval authorizations through a transferrable development credit (TDC) program authorized under subsection 11(9) of Chapter 424, Oregon Laws 2007 (Measure 49) and ORS 94.531. According to the purpose of the draft regulations, this will enable landowners to realize the value of their Measure 49 authorizations without developing the property from which the claim arose. These programs will permit landowners, on a voluntary basis, to transfer their development interest under Measure 49 from one property (sending) to another property (receiving) at a more suitable location. DLCD hopes these programs will reduce the adverse impact of scattered residential development on farm and forest and other resource land.
Under the proposed regulations, each county can establish its own program and DLCD will provide a model ordinance. The new ordinance will require counties to amend their comprehensive plans to designate sending and receiving areas for the TDCs. The regulation will require identification of approved holders of conservation easements and allow some form of third party enforcement – likely by the county or DLCD.
TDCs will be measured as one credit for each new dwelling authorized under the Measure 49 Final Order from DLCD. But, what TDC program would be complete without a bonus provision? Density bonuses may be available for sending properties that agree to some form of protection based on size – where a conservation easement for sending areas greater than 20 acres or a deed restriction for smaller sending areas may qualify for bonus TDCs. Notably, a conservation easement would still allow for agricultural, forest, public parks, and conservation uses, as well as any lawyer’s favorite undefined use – “low intensity uses.” TDC bonuses may also be available by virtue of the sending land being designated resource land, including high value farmland, high value forestland, natural areas and historic sites.
The draft regulations identify a few areas that county ordinances can designate to receive TDCs. These include rural residential areas zoned with 5 and 10 acre minimums that would be allowed densities with minimum lots sizes of 2.5 or 5 acres, respectively. Also, substantially developed subdivisions in resource zones could benefit from increased density. Last, in EFU zones, TDCs could be used for the purpose of allowing a lot or parcel with two dwellings to be partitioned, subject to some limitations. Receiving areas are to be selected to minimize conflicts with agriculture and forest operations.
DLCD will be required to sign off on an Amended Measure 49 Final Order for property owners entering into a TDC arrangement. But, if you hold a Measure 49 authorization, beware - some Measure 49 properties may still not be eligible for designation as sending properties if they are unbuildable. TDCs are fully transferrable but will be subject to a 10 year development clock measured from when the TDC is issued by DLCDs Amended Final Order. Last, some regional transfer of TDCs may be allowed along the typical division – Metro, Willamette Valley, Coastal, Southern and Eastern counties of the state.
Based on DLCD’s efforts with these draft regulations, the Measure 49 debate is being rekindled and those who thought they had some certainty will again be thrown into a planning process that could include a variety of outcomes. Perhaps resource lands will be protected, but those in rural residential areas might not be too excited to be receiving the gift. Moreover, the bonus TDCs are certainly an enticement, and those who worked so hard to limit Measure 49 rewards may not be inclined to support additional development rights to holders of Measure 49 approvals and related TDCs. DLCD staff’s tentative plan is to bring a recommendation for the new rules to LCDC at the January 22-23 meeting in Portland.
We regularly update clients about changes in real estate law and on industry trends. This includes briefing clients on legislative proposals in the federal tax, housing and other legal areas affecting their businesses. Staying current enables you to anticipate and prevent legal problems as well as capitalize on new developments.