Skip to main content
Fachgebiete
Automobil + Motoren Bauwesen + Immobilien Business IT + Informatik Elektrotechnik + Elektronik Energie + Nachhaltigkeit Finance + Banking Management + Führung Marketing + Vertrieb Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe Versicherung + Risiko
DE
EN
Bücher
Zeitschriften
Themenseiten
Organisationspsychologie Projektmanagement Marketing Smart Manufacturing
Weitere Formate
Podcasts Webinare Technik Webinare Wirtschaft Kongresse Veranstaltungskalender Awards
Jetzt Einzelzugang starten
Zugang für Unternehmen
Referenzkunden
SLX-Digitalkonferenz: Zukunftswerkstatt 2024

Mehr Umsatz mit Top-Kontakten

Am 7. Mai erfahren Sie, wie Vertriebsteams Leadgenerierung, Leadnurturing und Leadstrategien effizient steuern können.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Split Apart: How Regulations Designated Populations to Different Parts of the City Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2018 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

The Missing Link in the Evolution of Zoning

verfasst von : Amnon Lehavi

Erschienen in: One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

The centennial of the 1916 New York City Building Zone Resolution provides an exceptional opportunity to reconsider the regulatory and legal basis upon which the key governmental power of zoning is founded. The motive to control the various market externalities embedded in land use regulation, from effects on commercial activity to changes in housing prices, has practically guided local governments in the United States from the very first days of zoning. Yet at the same time, such considerations of market externalities remained in the shadows of explicit zoning law and policy, as the discussion was re-routed to the allegedly more stable foundations of zoning, such as control of environmental, fiscal, or social externalities. This chapter identifies the missing link in the evolution of zoning, showing how the control of market externalities has had an unsung yet powerful impact on the zoning power from its early days.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel North-American Zoning: Real-Estate Regulation—Past, Present and Future
Nächstes Kapitel Rethinking Zoning for People: Utilizing the Concept of the Village
Fußnoten
1
City of New York, Board of Estimate and Apportionment, Building Zone Resolution (adopted July 25, 1916).
 
2
United States Department of Commerce, Advisory Committee on Zoning, A Standard State Zoning Enabling Act (revised ed. 1926).
 
3
United States Department of Commerce, Advisory Committee on City Planning and Zoning, A Standard City Planning Enabling Act (1928).
 
4
272 U.S. 365 (1926).
 
5
Ibid., pp. 389–390, 395.
 
6
United States Constitution, Amendment V, §3.
 
7
272 U.S. 365 at 388.
 
8
This doctrine, while controversial and not fully articulated by courts, originates in the pre-zoning-era case of Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623 (1887). The Court refused to apply the Takings Clause to a regulation that prohibited the manufacture and sale of liquor in Kansas, a prohibition that applied also to existing breweries. It reasoned that the regulation stopped an activity that was “injurious to the health, morals, or safety of the community.” In Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104 (1978), Justice Rehnquist in dissent referred to this exception but described it as applying only to “noxious uses.” Ibid., pp. 144–146.
 
9
133 S. Ct. 2586 (2013).
 
10
483 U.S. 825 (1987).
 
11
512 U.S. 374 (1994).
 
12
Nollan, 483 U.S. at 837–42.
 
13
Dolan, 512 U.S. at 391–95.
 
14
Koontz, 133 S. Ct. at 2592–93 (Alito, J.).
 
15
Ibid. at 2599.
 
16
See California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose, 351 P.3d 974, 991 (Cal. 2015).
 
17
Ibid. at 991–92.
 
18
416 U.S. 1 (1974).
 
19
Ibid. at 2.
 
20
Ibid.
 
21
351 P.3d 974.
 
22
San Jose Municipal Code, §§ 5.08.10-5.08.730.
 
23
351 P.3d 974 at 979.
 
24
Ibid. at 987–91.
 
25
New York City, Mandatory Inclusionary Zoning (March 22, 2016). The text of the decision is available at: http://​www1.​nyc.​gov/​assets/​planning/​download/​pdf/​plans-studies/​mih/​approved-text-032216.​pdf.
 
26
272 U.S. 365 at 388.
 
27
See Island Silver & Spice, Inc. v. Islamorada, 542 F.3d 844, 845 (11th Cir. 2008) (quoting the language of Ordinance 02-02 §§ 6.4.3-4(a-b), adopted in 2002 by the City of Islamorada, Florida).
 
28
Island Silver & Spice, 542 F.3d at 847–49 (reasoning that the goal of preserving Islamorada’s “small town” features does not stand if other large non-standardized retailers are allowed, and holding that the special limits on formula retail violate the Dormant Commerce Clause’s protection of interstate commerce).
 
29
159 P.3d 33 (Cal. 2007).
 
30
Ibid. at 35, 39–40.
 
31
Ibid. at 41–42.
 
32
Ibid. at 45–46.
 
33
See Green Tree Estates v. Furstenberg, 124 N.W.2d 90 (Wis. 1963) (holding that a developer was not entitled to recover from a neighbor for voluntary construction of street improvement, curbs, and gutters).
 
34
See Ulmer v. Farnsworth, 15 A. 65 (Me. 1888) (rejecting the plaintiffs’ claim for recovery after their pumping of water from their own quarry unavoidably drained water from the defendant’s quarry).
 
35
See Dinosaur Dev., Inc. v. White, 265 Cal. Rptr. 525, 526 (Cal. Ct. App. 1989) (rejecting the restitution-based claim of a developer against his neighbor under such circumstances).
 
36
Referring to the underlying rationale of promoting the “general welfare” through the zoning power, articulated in Village of Euclid, 272 U.S. 365 at 388.
 
Literatur
Been, V. (1991). “Exit” as a constraint on land use exactions: Rethinking the unconstitutional conditions doctrine. Columbia Law Review, 91, 473–545.CrossRef
Biber, E., & Ruhl, J. B. (2014). The permit power revisited: The theory and practice of regulatory permits in the administrative state. Duke Law Journal, 64, 133–234.
Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the Cathedral. Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.CrossRef
Coase, R. H. (1960). The problem of social cost. Journal of Law and Economics, 3, 1–44.CrossRef
Dagan, H. (2004). The law and ethics of restitution. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Dari-Mattiacci, G. (2009). Negative liability. Journal of Legal Studies, 38, 21–60.CrossRef
Ellickson, R. C. (1973). Alternatives to zoning: Covenants, nuisance rules, and fines as land use controls. University of Chicago Law Review, 40, 681–781.CrossRef
Ellickson, R. C., Been, V. L., Hills, R. M., & Serkin, C. (2013). Land use controls: Cases and materials (4th ed.). New York: Wolters Kluwer.
Epstein, R. A. (2007). On Wal-Mart: Doing good by doing nothing. Connecticut Law Review, 39, 1287–1306.
Faulk, D. (2006). The process and practice of downtown revitalization. Review of Policy Research, 23, 625–645.CrossRef
Fennell, L. A. (2009). The unbounded home: Property values beyond property lines. New Haven: Yale University Press.CrossRef
Fennell, L. A., & Peñalver, E. M. (2014). Exactions creep. Supreme Court Review, 2013, 287–358.CrossRef
Fischel, W. A. (2015). Zoning rules: The economics of land use regulation. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Fischler, R. (1998). The metropolitan dimension of early zoning: Revisiting the 1916 New York City ordinance. Journal of American Planning Association, 64(2), 170–188.CrossRef
Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saks, R. E. (2005). Why have housing prices gone up? American Economic Review, 95(2), 329–333.CrossRef
Goldenberg, S. (2015, July 31). De Blasio plan would link affordable housing, rezoning. Politico.
Haunshek, E. A., & Quigley, J. M. (1990). Commercial land use regulation and local government finance. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 80(2), 176–180.
Holcombe, R. G., & Sobel, R. S. (2001). Public policy toward pecuniary externalities. Public Finance Review, 29, 304–325.CrossRef
Krugman, P. (1991). Increasing returns and economic geography. The Journal of Political Economy, 99, 483–499.CrossRef
Laffont, J. J. (2008). Externalities. In S. N. Durlauf & L. E. Blume (Eds.), The new Palgrave dictionary of economics (2nd ed.). New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Lehavi, A. (2006). Intergovernmental liability rules. Virginia Law Review, 92, 929–989.
Martin, R., & Sunley, P. (1996). Paul Krugman’s geographical economics and its implications for regional development theory: A critical assessment. Economic Geography, 72, 259–292.CrossRef
Neumark, D., Zhang, J., & Ciccarella, S. (2008). The effects of Wal-Mart on local labor markets. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, 405–430.CrossRef
O’Flaherty, B. (2005). City economics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRef
O’Sullivan, A. (2009). Urban economics (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare (4th ed.). London: Macmillan.
Porat, A. (2009). Private production of public goods: Liability for unrequested benefits. Michigan Law Review, 108, 189–227.
Quigley, J. M., & Raphael, S. (2005). Regulation and the high cost of housing in California. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 95(2), 323–328.CrossRef
Schwartz, J. (1997). Prisoners of proposition 13: Sales taxes, property taxes, and the fiscalization of municipal land use decisions. Southern California Law Review, 71, 183–217.
Sun, L. G., & Daniels, B. (2014). Mirrored externalities. Notre Dame Law Review, 90, 135–186.
Whitten, R. H. (1917). The building zone plan of New York city. National Municipal Review, 4(3), 325–336.CrossRef
Willis, C. (1995). Form follows finance: Skyscrapers and skylines in New York and Chicago. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Architectural Press.
California Building Industry Association v. City of San Jose 351 P.3d 974. (Cal. 2015).
Dinosaur Dev., Inc. v. White, 265 Cal. Rptr. 525, 526. (Cal. Ct. App. 1989).
Dolan v. City of Tigard 512 U.S. 374. (1994).
Green Tree Estates v. Furstenberg, 124 N.W.2d 90. (Wis. 1963).
Island Silver & Sp2ice, Inc. v. Islamorada, 542 F.3d 844. (11th Cir. 2008).
Koontz v. St. Johns Water Management District, 133 S. Ct. 2586. (2013).
Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623. (1887).
Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 483 U.S. 825. (1987).
Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of New York, 438 U.S. 104. (1978).
Ulmer v. Farnsworth, 15 A. 65. (Me. 1888).
Village of Belle Terre v. Boraas 416 U.S. 1. (1974).
Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388. (1926).
Metadaten
Titel
The Missing Link in the Evolution of Zoning
verfasst von
Amnon Lehavi
Copyright-Jahr
2018
Buch
One Hundred Years of Zoning and the Future of Cities

Print ISBN: 978-3-319-66868-0

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-319-66869-7

Copyright-Jahr: 2018

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-66869-7_3

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise