Affordable housing in California's Coastal Zone: A tale of state authority vs. local autonomy
Abstract This article examines the efforts of the California Coastal Commission to pursue simultaneously goals of environmental quality and affordable housing in the same state‐imposed regulatory program. The authors conclude that the Commission made substantial progress toward realizing both ends. However, the coastal body fell victim to its own successes, and housing was removed from its jurisdiction. As the Coastal Commission exercised its authority, opposition grew in strength and numbers. Key opponents included local government, which lost land‐use regulatory power to the Commission, the building industry, whose relationships with coastal localities were disrupted, and local property owners, whose land was restricted to uses other than the most profitable one.
Saving California's Coast: The Coastal Zone Initiative and Its Aftermath
Abstract In 1972 California's voters gave control over nearly all construction along the state's 1,000‐mile coastline to powerful state and regional boards. These boards will administer a permit system for three years, then submit a plan to the Legislature for the future preservation and development of the coast. The permit zone includes a wide variety of natural environments and possible uses, including open water, large tracts of undeveloped land, beach towns and resorts, and some of the nation's most valuable urban‐land. In the boards’ brief existence, the coastal regulators have acted on more than 5,000 permits, including controversial issues of beach access, density, agricultural preservation, power‐plant siting, and growth inducement.
OPEN SPACE ZONING: VALID REGULATION OR INVALID TAKING
THE CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEES LIMITING OPEN SPACE REGULATIONS ARE REVIEWED. AT PRESENT, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF FACTORS AND COMPETING EQUITIES WHICH COURTS TAKE INTO ACCOUNT IN DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN VALID REGULATION AND TAKING. DRAFTING BODIES SHOULD DO LIKEWISE AND SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE VARIOUS SCHEMES AVAILABLE TO EASE THE BURDEN ON THE REGULATED LANDOWNER. OPEN SPACE ZONING IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN TRADITIONAL ZONING. PARTICULARLY BECAUSE COURTS ARE MORE HESITANT TO RECOGNIZE THE LEGITIMACY OF THE EXERCISE OF THE POLICE POWER TO PROMOTE AESTHETIC OBJECTIVES THAN OTHERS, AND BECAUSE GOVERNMENTAL UNITS ARE INCREASINGLY DISCRIMINATING BY PAYING SOME PROPERTY OWNERS TO ACHIEVE THESE OBJECTIVES WHILE REGULATING OTHERS. /AUTHOR/