pols lecture 32

• Who governs in local communities

  • Traditional community elites were local mortgage-lending banks, developers, builders, landowners
  • Shared pro-growth, pro-development consensus
  • Maximize land values, Increase rents, mortgage interests, & revenues

  Today, national institutions control most economic resources

  E.g. Banks, investment firms, corporations, government
• Savings & Loan Crisis (1980s–early 1990s) led to collapse & consolidation of smaller lenders & firms

  Local elites can no longer have control over economic resources; National institutions have more power
• Local economic elites may no longer be "local leaders"
• Local control of land use

  • The economic resources & capitol to fund development are largely national
  • However, land use is still controlled by local government
  • Local governments levy taxes & provide services
  • General purpose governments also have authority over land use
• New local political elites


  May have differing ideas about how local government power should be used
• Rise of the political elites

  • Economic elites were "part-time politicians" and used local government & its decision-making authority to promote their economic interests (i.e. growth & personal wealth)
  • Political elites are "professional politicians" and are motivated by personal political ambition (i.e. power & celebrity)
  • Lack "pro-growth" consensus of economic elites
  • May be opposed to certain kinds of growth
• Politics of development


  • Urban areas are engines of economic growth & innovation
  • Collective benefits for entire community
  • Particular costs borne by some
  • Airports, pipelines, roads, utilities, waste disposal sites, etc. have to go somewhere
  • LULU – locally unwanted land use
  • Distribution of costs can be quite unequal across the community
• Sprawl


  • Refers to the outward extension of low-density development
  • Major infrastructure often built near edge of current development boundary
• Flight


  • Wealthier residents leave declining neighborhoods, & move outward
  • Areas lose consumer spending & tax revenues, services may decline
• Gentrification


  • Refers to the changing character of neighborhoods that occur via influx of higher-income residents
  • Positive effects: Restoration of buildings, lower crime, increased local tax revenues
  • Negative effects: Displacement of older residents & businesses due to rising prices (rents, property taxes)
  • Formerly-redlined neighborhoods often at risk for displacement due to gentrification
  • Loss of unique neighborhood culture
• Potential anti-development forces


  • Upper-middle class (dislike noise, pollution, traffic, ugly buildings that hurt "neighborhood integrity")
  • Lower-income residents (redevelopment may drive residents out w/ higher rents, property tax bills, etc.)
  • Directly-affected homeowners ("NIMBY")
• Growth restrictions


  • New emphasis on "smart growth" to create livable (& walk-able) communities w/ less sprawl
  • Often multi-use combining living space, work, retail
  • Policies associated with it: Zoning laws, Subdivision control, Utility & environmental regulations, Building permits
• Zoning


  • Land use regulation that designates permitted use(s) of land
  • In theory, this separates supposedly incompatible uses
  • As practiced, it is often used to preserve the "character" of a community
  • Favors existing residents & businesses
  • Stops new development from hurting the status quo
• Consequences of growth restrictions

  • Intended, positive consequences: Elimination of blight, Increased property values & tax revenues for city, More housing for residents (+ shops, bars, & restaurants)
  • Common, negative consequences: Shortages of affordable housing, Cost falls on poor, working class, minorities, renters, Rents increase, property taxes may become unaffordable
• Power of eminent domain

  • LULUs, unfavorable zoning can hurt property values
  • Cities NOT typically required to compensate affected owners
  • Eminent domain: Taking of private property for public use by government (or a designated right-of-way agent)
  • Use has to be public
  • Traditional public use: infrastructure, roads, utility lines
  • Just compensation must be provided to property owners
• U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment: '"…nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."'
• Kelo v. City of New London, CT (2005)


  • City government wanted to take residents' properties to then transfer to private developers (for Pfizer R&D complex)
  • "Public use" was to help the city's economy & increase local tax revenues
  • Legal issue: Was it a "public use"?
• Legal arguments in Kelo

  • Are "takings" for economic development allowable under 5th Amendment?
  • NO (Case for Kelo): The "taking" does NOT qualify as public use, It will be privately-owned after redevelopment
  • YES (Case for New London): Land use was part of an area development plan, Plan will increase tax revenues & create jobs for residents
• City did not win in the U.S. Supreme Court (5-4)
• "Public use" broadened to "public purpose"
• Kelo decision almost universally decried
• Several state supreme courts have repudiated Kelo for interpreting state constitutions
• Most eminent domain is state & local
• ~45 states reformed eminent domain, restricting either:

  "Takings" for development by private enterprise,

  Eminent domain for economic development
• Eminent domain in Texas

  • In TX, "right-of-way" agents have broad powers
  • These agents include telecommunication, utility, railroad, or pipeline services companies
  • But public use must be public.
  • TX Constitution, Art 1 (Bill of Rights) Sec. 17 on "Takings" (as amended in 2009): …"public use" does not include the taking of property … for transfer to a private entity for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
• Politics of land use

  • General problem of individual rights & interests v. community interests (& necessities)
  • Community needs utilities, infrastructure, etc.
  • Each & every individual cannot have full "veto power" over development & projects they dislike
  • Costs of development must fall somewhere
  • Where do the costs fall?
  • Is there equity in where they fall?
  • Which parts of the community can successfully avoid costs (& thus force them on others)?