The California Department of Housing and Community Development distributes a weekly news update from various sources. This week one of the articles was entitled "Housing crisis needs California lawmakers to build consensus now." The opinion article is from the San Diego Union-Tribune Editorial Board, January 27, 2017.
As this Firm anticipated back in September, the Supreme Court recently declined to hear a challenge to the California Supreme Court's decision in California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015), cert. denied, 577 U.S. __ (2016). At issue in BIA's Petition for Writ of Certiorari was whether the city's "Inclusionary Housing Ordinance," which required that residential developments of at least twenty (20) homes sell at least fifteen percent (15%) of the homes at below-market prices (as determined by the City) to buyers with qualifying income levels, was an unconstitutional taking under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Despite numerous attempts to revive redevelopment in California, Gov. Jerry Brown has remained steadfast until quite recently. On September 22, 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 2 into law.
In litigation with broad impact for residential real estate development and affordable housing, the Building Industry Association has appealed their loss in CBIA v. City of San Jose, 61 Cal. 4th 435 (2015), to the U. S. Supreme Court. In that decision, the California Supreme Court sided with the City of San Jose, saying that the City's affordable housing ordinance, which requires that new developments sell 15 percent of their units at reduced prices, is not an "exaction" triggering a strict analysis under the California and U.S. Constitutions, as to whether a government has taken property without compensation (takings). Instead, the ordinance and its development conditions would be analyzed like any other municipal ordinance.